Archive 1

Archive 2

If you have a problem with the footnote numbering after editing this article, add ?action=purge to the end of the page name in your brower address bar to fix it. (See also this discussion.) --Flex 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I started this article to fulfill the "Alcohol, Drinking of" entry from Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology project, and I've made it public here in its current form in the hopes that others would contribute to it to make it better. --Flex 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how prohibitionists address the fact that Jesus drank wine and also that miracle he made at the wedding when he provided it. This is not intended to be a pun, just curious. --217.130.121.152

That will be addressed in time in the article, I trust. My understanding is that prohibitionists take "wine" to be non-fermented grape juice in that (and other) contexts where the text does not explicitly require alcoholic content. --Flex 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW my english is far from perfect but it sounds better to me "christian views on alcohol" that the current one.

I'd like to second this. "Of" may not be incorrect, but it does sound awkward. --MQDuck

As a native speaker of American English, the current title sounds fine (actually a bit better than "on") to my ear. Perhaps it's British vs. American or some other cultural thing? It should be noted that both "of" and "on" are used in existing article titles such as Views of Palestinian statehood, Sunni view of Ali, Christian views on witchcraft, and Political views on the Macedonian language. I've added a redirect as per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, and I think the title should remain as-is, though I wouldn't be heartbroken if it didn't. --Flex 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There´s a personal doubt for me. Could anyone tell us how the old Hebrews called grape juice? Just for starting, makes no sense at all turning it into "vine", for the sole reason that without alcohool, this natural conservant, a grape juice woudn´t survive too long. And those ancient people had a strong need of this source of vitamin B.

I'm no expert on Christianity, so I won't make any edits on the article myself. However, aren't Mormons strict abolishionists? If so, someone might want to mention them. --MQDuck

I hope we can expand this article to include Mormonism and other groups not yet mentioned. --Flex 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Some would consider the Mormons outside the pale of orthodoxy, but I think it's important to have some mention of their stance.

Also, I'm surpised there is no mention of the Seventh Day Adventists. They are particularily strong teetotalers.

Perhaps there should be a section for the Restorationist church movement (which would include LDS & SDA). --68.116.98.179

Excellent thoughts! Let's get expanding! (FYI, I plan to focus on the "Alcohol in the Bible" section, as time allows.) --Flex 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very contentious issue to call sects who reject the stipulates of Nicene Creed "Christian" and to not make the distinction is misleading and transference technique. To not stipulate between Nicene creed adherents and non-Nicene creed adherents is to introduce confusion. Self-referencing as "Christian" is far to minimalist of a definition. One might as well confuse Mormon and JW articles by introducing Catholic and Protestant views under a Mormon or JW label. No ecumenical movement of Christians (e.g., the World Council of Churches) in the world accepts non-Nicene Christians as Christians indeed so to include them in an ecyclopedia as such is on shaky ground. If at some point non-Nicene crede adherents who go by "Christian" wish to be included here, it would be completely misleading, confusing, and again transference technique, to not give them a seperate section called something like "Non-Nicene Crede Adherents". Placing the delimiter is an attempt, and I would argue required, to avoid a complex and heated argument! Here is a VERY long and still ongoing one Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#.22Consider_themselves....22 in case you'd like an example. Also SDAs donot really stemfrom the restorationist movement. CyberAnth 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is pure nonsense (pardon my lack of tact). The Wikipedia article on Christianity begins, "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ." No mention there of a Christian being someone who accepts the Nicene Creed.

For the record, Mormonism is not abolitionist per se, in the sense that alcohol ought to be done away with. Rather, members of the Church are expected to avoid all alcohol consumption. If that's what was meant by "abolitionist", then I would agree. Institutionally, alcohol is not considered "evil", merely prohibited for Latter-day Saints living today. Obviously, individual opinions about alcohol still vary widely. 131.107.0.73 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a much broader question than this article can or should deal with. We need to try to find neutral language to deal with it succinctly here. --Flex 01:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problems is easily solved by reffering to the restorationist movement, rather than a specific church. Wrad 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Baptists were put under this heading. I'm not sure it's completely accurate as the largest US Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, is a strictly dry denomination. Many Independent Baptists are too. Conversative Baptists do generally fall under this heading though. American Baptists have fairly liberal theology, so I believe would fall under the moderationist. Also, many Friends (Quakers), Old Order & Conservative Mennonites and Methodists are dry. The Amish only drink a tiny amount of sweet wine as part of wedding celebrations. I'll have to double check, but I believe the aforementioned Mennonite groups even have a written standard that opposes drinking. --68.116.98.179

I'm entirely in favor of expanding coverage and making the article more accurate. Feel free to do some research and take a whack at it! --Flex 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is somehow very Protestant-biased, Anglospheric-biased and specially US-Protestant-biased; reading the article gives two strange impressions: that “all Christian sects are against alchool”, or that “Protestantism is the only true form of Christianism” — by the time I’ve read the article, there wasn’t even a wikilink to the Roman Catholic Church, for example --MaGioZal 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First, there is indeed a link to the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church and Lutheranism, none of which are Anglospheric in origin or current extent (and only the last is Protestant). Certainly, I'd like to see more international material where applicable, but my research thus far has suggested that the abstentionist/prohibitionist phenomenon is largely a post-Second Great Awakening, American Protestant thing. Nearly everyone else in Christendom (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and even much of American Protestantism) is moderationist.

Second, I can't understand how one could take away from the article that "all Christian sects are against alcohol" since even the intro paragraph makes the opposite clear (emphasis added):

The Christian view of alcohol was nearly universal throughout the first 1800 years of church history: alcohol in its various forms is a gift from God..., but drunkeness is a sin. Around the time of the Second Great Awakening, some Protestant Christians moved from this historical position of allowing moderate use of alcohol.... Today, all three of these positions exist within Christendom, but the historic position is the most common worldwide.

Third, I am positively baffled by your claim that the article gives the impression that "Protestantism is the only true form of Christianism (sic)." What particular statements made you think that? --Flex 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there were, and are, Catholic temperance societies. AFAIK, the official church doctrine does not forbid moderate consumption. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.98.179 (talk • contribs). ♠ Having sections specific to colonial America and Prohibition makes the article appear America-centric to some extent. Why not combine events in America within sections about regions or continents?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So far, the bulk of the literature I have found on this topic has been related to America. If you have resources about other countries, please share. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As others have said, the article (post-Middle Ages) is strongly biased towards American Protestantism, and very nearly deserves a "worldwide view" tag. Catholicism also had huge Temperance movements - we don't unfortunately have an "Temperance Pledge" article, but try Theobald Mathew (temperance reformer), Knights of Father Mathew, and Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. These weren't hard to find. It is also notable how many of the Protestant American campaigners, like Matilda Carse and Francis Murphy (evangelist), were Irish born and raised. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read quite a bit about this but have found only passing mention to other countries and a number of sources that indicate America and, to a lesser degree, GB (including Ireland) are the focal points. Temperance advocates McClintock and Strong, for instance, describe the movement as being most potent in American Protestantism, then the British Isles, then Sweden, and then Australia, Madagascar, India, and China (see the ref I just added; note the absence of continental Europe, Russia, etc.). If you have sources for other countries, let me know. I also reworded the bit on Catholicism and added a ref for it. The point there was that the church's official position never wavered. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

William Booth was the first General of the Salvation Army, founded in the United Kingdom. --Nephate (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this group had its roots in Christianity, it would be good to include some reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs).

This is in the works. Thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Permission to use mustum for priests with alcoholism

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs).

User:GearedBull recently renamed this article from "Christian views of alcohol" to "Christian view of alcohol" because the opening sentence bolded the latter phrase. However, the article itself is concerned with describing the multiple views, which makes the former more appropriate. Re-reading WP:MOS#Article_titles, I think this page falls under the "descriptive" type of article names, so I will unbold the phrase and rename the page appropriately. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Flex and I (User:GearedBull) have opposite opinions about the lead-in sentence, and use of bold. To clarify I understand not every article need have the identical title in bold in its first sentence. While it is acknowledged that the article calls for a pluralistic title, and that there was some range of opinions in the first 1800 years of Christian history, I believe it justifiable to phrase the lead-in to read:

Christian views of alcohol were nearly universal throughout the first 1800 years of church history: alcohol in its various forms is a gift from God (though one that might be justly declined temporarily or permanently as part of a vow or ascetic regimen), but drunkeness is a sin. During that same period, wine was used in one of the most important rites in the Christian tradition—holy communion.

After several edits, I wonder if others might weigh in? Thanks.CApitol3 04:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The text I would prefer is: "The Christian view of alcohol was nearly universal...." The reasons I prefer it are that it reads more smoothly (not least because of the definite article) and that the view before the 1800s was universal except among tiny, tiny minorities like the Gnostics Cyprian was writing against (cf. Christian_views_of_alcohol#In_the_early_church). Before Welch, grape juice automatically converted to wine after a little time, so wine was the only option for regular communion unless one did not use the "fruit of the vine" at all. Even most ascetics (e.g., monks) still had their beer and wine.

Second, the WP:MOS#Article_titles has this to say about bolding:

If the topic of the article doesn't have a name and the article's title is simply descriptive (like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker), it does not need to appear verbatim in the article, and, if it does, should not be bolded.

The title of this article qualifies as descriptive. Therefore, it doesn't need to appear exactly or to be bolded according to the MOS. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the text/formatting I give above, but until this is resolved, I tweaked GB's intro to read "The Christian views of alcohol were nearly unanimous...." Still sounds awkward to me, but less awkward. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean a bit differently, myself. Bold is not "needed" and I'd remove the title as a verbatim chunk.

To Christians, alcohol consumption has always been a blessing (it is a gift from God) and a curse (it can lead to drunkeness). During the first 1800 years, wine was used in one of the most important rites in the Christian tradition—holy communion. Around the time of the Second Great Awakening, some Protestant Christians moved from this historical position of allowing moderate use of alcohol (sometimes called moderationism) either to deciding it was better not to partake of it (abstentionism) or to prohibiting it outright (prohibitionism). Today, all three of these positions exist within Christendom, but the historic position remains the most common worldwide.

This simplifies the lead sentence a bit and makes it more digestible.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of us own this article. It will eventually be revised by others. Our "perfect" rendition might not be perceived as that by others.

"Too many articles, too little time..."

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry. I'd suggest that the intro sentence is slightly misleading because of the word "always." It has not been universally considered a blessing since the 1800s. Let's keep massaging here it until we all think it's smooth. For my next try, I'll say (with precisely this formatting):

Throughout the first 1800 years of church history, Christians considered alcoholic beverages to be a gift of God that makes life more joyous but that must be used in moderation to avoid the sin of drunkenness, and they used wine in their central rite – the Eucharist.

The rest is unchanged. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: I'd change "they" to "these same Christians":

Throughout the first 1800 years of church history, Christians considered alcoholic beverages to be a gift of God that makes life more joyous but that must be used in moderation to avoid the sin of drunkenness, and these same Christians used wine in their central rite – the Eucharist.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this would become easier if we simply rename the article to "Christianity and alcohol" (which parallels Islam and alcohol). Objections? --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly Agree This eliminates some questions by making it more catholic in nature. Lmcelhiney 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Solid! You did a great job with the shift to the new focus. I am pleased to have been involved. Lmcelhiney 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Christ used wine at the last supper, the Eastern Orthodox Church requires the use of wine in the Eucharist. The Orthodox Church has no restrictions on the consumption of alcohol as long as moderation is observed and drunkenness is avoided. There are, however, numerous fixed periods during the year (a total of about 1/3 of the year) when the Church requires its members to abstain from wine, animal products, and olive oil. Most Orthodox include all hard liquor in this fast as well; beer however, is allowed.--Phiddipus 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore it may be interesting to mention the legend that when Prince Vladimir of Kiev choose his new religion he picked Christianity over Islam because he couldn't imagine Slavs adhering to a religion that forbade alcohol. Be careful with this story, though. lest it turn into a anti-Slavic joke. Kevlar67 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think many people forget the day and age in which these allowances and restrictions were created. Way-back-when it was not safe to drink water, or rather, you ran a high risk of disease when you drank water because there was no process of decontamination (They didn't even know there were germs anyway). Alcohol, on the other hand, kills germs. Without realizing it, those who drank beer and wine ended up healthier in the end.--Phiddipus 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that is a common argument used by abstentionists (but not prohibitionists) on why circumstances have changed today such that alcohol should be considered less acceptable. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, does the Orthodox church allow (or require) mixing the Eucharist wine with water? Is there anything "official" about drinking wine for pleasure? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, during the preporation of the Eucharist the Priest reads the line: they pierced his side (at which he pierces the host with the "spear") and from it flowed blood and water (at which he pours a quantity of both blood and water into the chalice.--Phiddipus 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, just before Communion, the Deacon adds boiling water (Greek: zeon) to the chalice, saying, "The fervour (zeal) of faith, full of the Holy Spirit." MishaPan 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Drinking wine as a beverage isn't frowned upon in Eastern Orthodoxy, and perhaps even encouraged. Some well-known Greek wine is produced and bottled by the monks of Mount Athos; since it's the most famous center of Eastern Orthodox monasticism, this is taken as a pretty high endorsement. In addition, it's customary for a visitor to an Eastern Orthodox monastery to be given a shot of tsipouro (a homemade hard liquor) along with a loukoumi to help them recover from their journey. For the most part, though, I think it's considered a non-religious issue. The Church would counsel against excess alcohol use more as an issue of health and character, much as it counsels against, say, someone sitting on a couch eating potato chips all day. --Delirium 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's allowed in moderation, and as at least most alcohol is avoided during (most) fasting days, that's sometimes taken as a good opportunity to make sure that drinking alcohol hasn't become an addiction. Of course drunkenness is considered a sin and treated as such. Wesley 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to not find a summary of prohibition here. At the very least, see also link would be helpful, but I feel that a paragraph or two summarizing the most relevant parts of the prohibition article would be a good addition to this article. What do others thing? Is there a reason that prohibition isn't mentioned except in passing in the 1800s section.-Andrew c 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Prohibition is rightly only mentioned in passing because the subject of this article is Christianity's relationship with alcohol, which is different and broader topic than the Prohibitionist era -- the temperance movement and Prohibition were more social movements that claimed support from Judeo-Christian heritage. Let me know if you see things differently or just take a swing at the article itself, and we'll see what we can hash out. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to evaluate this article for the GA status. I have to read the whole article but the first thing I noticed is that the introduction and some parts in other sections are not sourced. Could you please find secondary(i.e. not direct references to the Bible) WP:RS compatible sources for the intro. --Aminz 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article can benefit from Encyclopedia of Religion, Encyclopedia of Christianity(Oxford University Press), etc etc. Do you have access to a library nearby to check with these academic sources? If not, I can scan them and email them for the editors active in this article. --Aminz 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added some two sources to the lede (which was really just summarizing the sourced material that follows). Please specify which other places you think need sources.

I do not have easy access to those encyclopedias. If you are willing to scan them, I will try to make use of them. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, Thanks for sourcing the intro. I haven't get to read the article carefully yet but I will do that soon as soon as I get more free from real life. I hope we can finish the review of this long article soon.

I have scanned the pages on "wine" from a number of sources. But I can not attach them from the Wikipedia-send-email. There are two option: You (and other interested editors involved in this article) send me an email and I'll attach the scanned pages in my reply; or if you just leave some email address of yours here. Either way works for me. Have a good day, --Aminz 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply you back in an hour (I am going out to eat now :P ) Cheers, --Aminz 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Hebrew section, [2], I can see 7 words for wine in hebrew bible and 3 in NT. The source however mentions 12 names [3]. I think it is my confusion but can you please clear this. Thanks --Aminz 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question: Does the article say anywhere that according to some scholars the story of Jesus making copious wine at the wedding at Cana is only figurative and it didn't actually happen. --Aminz 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, William Montgomery Watt said in an interview:

I don’t think some of the other miracles really happened. For instance, one of the outstanding things was the supposed changing of water into wine at a marriage feast. This is given in the 4th gospel and is said to be the first of the signs of Jesus’ achievement. Clearly, this was meant to be understood symbolically, because making a lot of wine has nothing to do with the Gospel. It was meant to symbolise changing something ordinary into something precious, which is what Jesus had achieved. It was not meant to be taken literally - there was a tremendous amount of wine involved - the equivalent of about 900 bottles - and I don’t think Jesus was an alcoholic.

--Aminz 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you'll note that I removed the {{fact}} that you added about the OT being Hebrew and Aramaic. I did this because this fact is not at all disputed (as one can easily verify in Aramaic language, Old Testament, and the Book of Daniel) and because a reference about every single statement of fact is out of place and overwhelming.

Regarding the number of words for wine in the OT: Easton is noting that there are several words that the KJV and some other older translations improperly render "wine." Compare the translation of the verses that Easton gives for the Hebrew word "Ashishah" (which does not appear in this article) in the KJV and the NIV, NASB, and ESV (cf. also the RSV and NAB, which agree with the modern translations but which I can't easily generate links to). Some older translations render it "flagon of wine" or similar, while all newer ones render it "raisin" or "raisin cake" or similar. In short, I have omitted words that modern scholarship (even that of Easton's day) universally agrees do not refer to wine. I did, however, add shemar, which was previously omitted.

Regarding the wine at Cana, I think Watt's view is by far the minority (cf. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight). Even those who believe the NT is a collection of myths still believe that the author of the fourth gospel intended his account of the wedding to be taken as historical rather than purely symbolic (although certainly all of Jesus' "signs" are also intended as symbolic actions pointing beyond themselves). The reasons for this view are that the author puts the event firmly in historical context (Jn 2:1-2,11) and later refers back to it as an historical event (Jn 4:46). The current wording, I believe, represents a neutral point of view on the matter because it says the Christian Scriptures say Jesus made this wine, not that the miracle actually happened. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I do NOT dispute the "OT being Hebrew and Aramaic" statement. Just that to a non-expert this is not obvious and it needs to be sourced. To a knowledgable person, it is obvious. But I think the statements in this article should eb verifiable by someone who doesn't know much about the matter.

Also, You are probably 100% right that the source you mentioned is outdated. BUT if that is the case, then that source should be removed. Your arguments show your knowledge on this matter and I'll agree with you on a personal level. On the wikipedia level, we need a new source(secondary) source making these arguments. While I find your arguments convincing, in wikipedia, we really need an scholar who states these facts. On the surface level, what we have now is a "good-faith" misrepresentation of the source. --Aminz 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the Hebrew/Aramaic citation: I believe that the existing wikilinks to Old Testament and Aramaic language are sufficient to substantiate and give more information for such a non-controversial, easily verifiable claim. WP:CITE says: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." That is not the case here -- no one disputes that the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, just as no one disputes the NT was written in Koine Greek or that the Vulgate was written in Latin. Requiring that every single non-controversial statement be wikilinked as well as footnoted will lead to a LOT more footnotes than the current 200+, and it ignores the purpose of the wikilinks, which is "to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information" (MoS:L).

Re Easton: I was not saying he was out-dated (quite the contrary; his work is still generally quite accurate and good, save those few spots where recent archeological discoveries have shed some new light on matters). Rather, I said he was discussing how the KJV and other older translations of the Bible were out-dated, and in fact modern scholarship agrees with his assessment on this point 100%. --Flex (talk|contribs) 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I think we have good faith disagreements. I'll leave the Hebrew/Aramaic sourcing.

I usually don't dare to decisively say that modern scholarship has outdated a source. You might be right but to someone who is not familiar with the subject, it just seems an original research. I could see statement X is referenced to source Y, but they are saying different things. Please provide another source saying the source Y is outdated on these points. I don't know if the fact that some recent translations of the Bible disagree with Easton is sufficient to prove that the "modern scholarship" has rejected Easton. Maybe there are different theories. Why not presenting the basic facts rather than conclusions. Easton says X and more recent translations disagree.

The article says: "Yayin and oinos (which also usually translates yayin and tirosh in the Septuagint) are commonly translated "wine," but the two are rarely and perhaps figuratively or anticipatorily used in the Bible to refer to freshly pressed juice". It is referenced to a primary source. How does it show that these words are rarely and perhaps figuratively or anticipatorily used in the Bible? --Aminz 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First, a note on formatting: since we're doing a lot of communicating here, I'll suggest that we should adopt convention 2 listed under the indenting bullet of WP:TPG#Layout. That is, you don't indent your text at all, I'll indent all my text once, and if someone else joins the discussion, they can indent twice. Otherwise, our responses will start getting unnecessarily scrunched on the right side of the screen. I've taken the liberty of unindenting your post above.

Re Easton: I think there has been some misunderstanding here. Above you say I have asserted that "the source [I] mentioned [namely, Easton's Bible Dictionary] is outdated," and here you say I have asserted "that some recent translations of the Bible disagree with Easton" and you ask for proof that "'modern scholarship' has rejected Easton." Let me be explicit: I am not saying nor have I said Easton is out-dated (on this point); and I am not saying nor have I said that modern translations of the Bible disagree with Easton; and I am not saying nor have I said that modern scholarship rejects Easton. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite.

Easton is only contradicting older translations such as the KJV (which was published in 1611). All modern scholarship (in which I am including Easton!) is in agreement on the fact that the KJV mistranslated several relevant words in the OT. The dictionaries and other sources I have cited say that explicitly (cf. also The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon on "Ashishah"), and the modern translations act as implicit lexicons on this matter because they are done by committees of scholars and universally translate these words not as designations for wine. You'll note that I have added "sobhe" and "chomets"/"oxos" but I don't plan to add "ashishah", "'enabh", or "yekebh" from Easton's list since they are not properly translated wine according to the many lexicons and encyclopedias I have consulted.

In short, Easton's Bible Dictionary is in full agreement with modern translations and lexicons about mistranslations in older English versions of the Bible, and therefore the omission of words like "ashishah" from the table of words is justified. Do you agree with this assessment?

Re the poetic use of "wine": I have added my source. Thanks for pointing out the omission. (The Bible citations are the two locations where this poetic construction is allegedly employed.)

BTW, I got the extra sources you sent, and I'll try to go through them all and add references this weekend. Cheers! --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have incorporated your sources (I ended up citing all but the Eerdman's dictionary). FYI, I am currently doing more research on historical aspects. In particular, I'm reading The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink by I. W. Raymond. Next on my list is Drinking in America by M. E. Lender, which I have cited in the article but have only read snippets of (see the excerpt that is linked to in the references). --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Flex for your additions. I will put a note on the GA article page indicating that I have reviewed the first part of this article and that it looks good. Cheers and Good Luck. Take Care, --Aminz 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty, Aminz.

For the reference of other reviewers, Aminz said on the candidates page: "I have reviewed this article up to the section Christianity_and_alcohol#Sacrifices_and_feasts. This article is very well-written and most probably passes the GA criteria." --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I passed this article for GA. If you want it to go further the next thing you should address is the influence of Christian churches to bring about the era of Prohibition in the United States, and then also how did the experience of Prohibition (see as a failure even by those who brought it to bear) affect the attitude of churches to alcohol in its wake. DavidYork71 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Many commentaries make mention that Timothy likely totally abstained from alcohol, which gave rise to Paul recommending it for medicinal purposes for his ailments (1Ti 5:23). Perhaps this should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I'll see what I can do. (BTW, you can sign your posts automatically by putting in ~~~~.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might be able to dig up some references regarding commentaries. 66.191.19.42 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't turn them down, especially if they came with relevant quotations. :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could St. Augustine of Hippo be considered an abstentionist?

“Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.” -St. Augustine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

More info coming on this shortly (my current research for this article is on the opinions in the early church), but in short, for many of the church fathers, abstinence was recommended to avoid the opportunity for temptation. Temperance (i.e., moderation) was the ideal, but abstinence was considered easier in some ways. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The early fathers of the church set their goals very high. The easy path was usually not the favored path. Strict abstinence often lead to pride in ones achievements, which was considered more damaging to the soul than is one had indulged. St John Climacus (6th Century) states: It is better to taste a little of each dish in order to subvert pride in ones ability to abstain.

--Phiddipus 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There were also several ascetics, movements, orders, etc. that pre-date 1800 that forbade drinking. I believe the early Quaker William Penn and John Wesley (both pre-1800) had some pretty strong words on the subjec too. Just some things to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

Most of these ascetics also abstained from fancy foods, clothing, etc., and the hermits were generally much more ascetic than the cenobites. I'll be addressing this subject from the sources shortly. Thanks for the suggestions! --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. The article is really coming along. 66.191.19.42 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have done all my research on this topic, but I haven't had time to incorporate it yet. I spent some time breaking out and improving Alcohol in the Bible instead (cf. WP:SUMMARY) since this article was getting quite long. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is coming along quite well. The information regarding St. Augustine may be a valuable addition. 71.92.157.95 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been an abstentionist all my life and know very little about winemaking and fermentation. But I was of the understanding there is a distinct difference between "Old Wine" and "New Wine" in the Bible. I'd be interested in seeing some information on this distinction from those of you who know more on the subject than I. --Andy. 209.55.80.148 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're specifically looking for, but there's some information in the article already concerning this. Just CTRL+F and search for 'dilut' and you'll find a few relevant passages about the strength and mixing of wine during the Old Testament times and the New Testament times.--C.Logan 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Alcohol in the Bible for a fairly comprehensive discussion of the different types/stages of wine mentioned in the Bible. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' answer to John the Baptist's disciples was that while he was present with his disciples he was like a bride groom at a wedding feast and so his saving presence is like new wine preserved in new wine skins (Matthew 9:15-17). The teaching was in the form of a parable of "fasting and mourning" of the Pharisees, "eating and drinking" of him and his disciples (Luke 5:33), and how new teachings are accepted and preserved. Thus Luke 5:39, "No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’” The Pharisees in the New Testament were keepers and enforcers of the Law of Moses, where for example, the extreme was to hand out death sentence to adultress (which may reflect a Jewish test to prove a false prophet's deviation from divine law (Mark 12:13); or possibly as another example of perverting the purpose of the law as "man was not made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27), whereas Jesus and his disciples "New Covenant" of grace would say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). This one example reflects the power of the Messiah in His Kingdom of the primitive congregation practicing God's Law as it was intended. User:bwildasi Fri May 2 03:30:52 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a pretty long history of being teetotalers [4][5][6][7]. I think they should be added, with proper sourcing, to the Abstentionism section. 71.92.157.95 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We might want to include Billy Sunday in the list of abstentionists or prohibitionists. He was rather outspoken about the topic of alcohol. 68.113.47.180 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As of August 31, 2007, this section clearly has a mis-citation: "Cyprian (died 258) rejects as "contrary to evangelical and apostolical discipline" the practice of some Gnostics, who used water instead of wine in the Eucharist. While still rejecting drunkenness, on the content of the cup he says, "The Holy Spirit also ... makes mention of the Lord’s cup, and says, 'Thy inebriating cup, how excellent it is!' [quoting the Vulgate translation of Ps 23:5] Now the cup which inebriates is assuredly mingled with wine, for water cannot inebriate anybody." The Vulgate translation comes from the 5th century; is the quoted section from the Vulgate, and therefore not from Cyprian, or is it from Cyprian and therefore not the Vulgate?

Lifthrasir1 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. The entire quote is from Cyprian in the Schaff edition of Cyprian linked to in the footnotes. I inserted the parenthetical since that verse is rendered differently in every modern translation, which all give preference to other manuscripts. The Vulgate and Septuagint, however, give something similar to what Cyprian says. Since he was Latin, I made the incorrect leap to say that he used the Vulgate. Thanks for the catch. I have corrected the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle this once and for all. If Jesus Christ had been against the common drinking of wine, his first miracle would not have been turning water into wine. Case closed! Baptists, middle agers, and any other anti-alcoholers are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a discussion forum (WP:TPG#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but it doesn't appear that others have remained straight in that regard on this page either. Christ's first miracle has definite significance to this article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The points raised above (unlike some of those at Talk:Alcohol in the Bible) are generally directly related to a specific point of the article's content, as far as a quick scan can tell. In any case, the typical off-purpose post is by an anon who came from Google, is unaware that the WP has standards for talk pages, and departs quickly, whereas you are a member of the Wikipedia community. Besides, one wrong does not justify another. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my error, it's the new year, which is like a Monday.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Synod of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) in Canon XXIV. ruled: "No one of the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers, or any of the class of the Ascetics, ought to enter a tavern." Likewise, this synod in Canon LV. ruled: "NEITHER members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen, may club together for drinking entertainments." The Quinisext Council in Trullo (692 AD) in Canon IX. ruled: "Let no cleric be permitted to keep a 'public house.' For if it be not permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed." Does any user deny that these sources at least appear to be relevant to this article? Even so, these primary sources have been removed. Users: do you have additional historical sources about such rules? If possible, will you quote your additional historical sources? Thank you. Nephate (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They appear like they may be relevant, yes. But as I said in my edit summary, taverns, pubs, and "drinking entertainments" might be proscribed for reasons wholly or partially unrelated to alcohol itself, which is the subject of this article. We need a reliable secondary source to explain further. Compare WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Rule of St. Benedict" (XL.): says of abstainers, "let them know that they will have their special reward." "Although we read [from earlier than Benedict] that wine is not at all proper for monks, yet, because monks in our times cannot be persuaded of this, let us agree to this, at least, that we do not drink to satiety..." Now the article has: "For over 1,800 years, the regular use of wine in the celebration of the Eucharist and in daily life was the universal and undisputed practice in Christianity." Users: would you like the omitted Laodicea Canon XXIV etc. to be restored - simply in order to give readers the strongest confidence of the assertion that using alcoholic wine was really the "universal and undisputed" practice? :-) --Nephate (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Benedict's rule is discussed neutrally in the article under "Middle Ages". Moreover, his rule and those on which he draws are concerned with the place of wine in monks' ascetic regimen, not its general use and especially not its use in the sacrament. Ascetic practices like those of the monks (or the Nazirites in the OT) thus do not mark a different view of the legality of wine any more than they do of the legality of meat or grapes.

As for Laodicea -- to reiterate -- taverns, pubs, and "drinking entertainments" might be proscribed for reasons wholly or partially unrelated to alcohol itself, which is the subject of this article. We need a reliable secondary source to explain further. (Compare WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources.) Also, the proscription of drinking in these contexts does not imply that it was illegitimate in other contexts, e.g. in private or the eucharist. Paul says one should not eat meat in some circumstances, but that doesn't illegitimate it in other circumstances. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"...yet, because monks in our times cannot be persuaded of this..." Would this remind you of a certain saying of Jesus? "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you ... but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8) --Nephate (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if this allusion were intended (which premise I do not grant), it would still only apply to nourishment under the monks' ascetic regimen, many other parts of which prohibitionists reject as having the appearance of wisdom but no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col. 2:20-23). It would also certainly still not apply to the Benedictine's understanding of the eucharist, and thus drinking wine, in their view, is not against the command of God but rather is the command of God in a very important and regularly recurring instance.

In any case, I will change "universal" to "virtually universal" to overcome any very rare exception(s) to the rule. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "Benedict's rule ... and those on which he draws are concerned with .. monks ... not its general use..." So then - will you also refuse to use Benedict's reluctant concession to the declining standards of the monks of his day to demonstrate and excuse the "universal" practice of drinking for 1800 years - no less? What about the Synod of Laodicea (Canon XXIV)? It had listed at length: "the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers, or any of the class of the Ascetics..." Why a lengthy list? If this rule regarding taverns had only named bishops, would you use it to necessarily demonstrate and excuse the "universal" (or "almost universal") practice? 1 Timothy 3:3 says a bishop must not be greedy, violent, etc. Should someone say the word "bishop" is a loophole? Does this really justify laymen being greedy, etc.? "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Should someone say the word "neighbor" is a loophole? "But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'" (Luke 10:29)--Nephate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

P.S. 1 Timothy 3:3 says an overseer / bishop must be "not a drinker" in World English Bible and in Green's Literal Translation 1985. --Nephate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I fail to comprehend what you are saying about Benedict's rule. All it demonstrates in my mind is that even some of the more ascetic members of the ancient faith partook of wine as part of their meals and in the sacrament. Benedict seems to prefer an even more ascetic regimen as a higher path (John the Baptist was quite a righteous man after all). Surely if Benedict thought it were sin to drink wine, he would never concede to a less ascetic regimen. Moreover, if your argument about Benedict's rule were valid, it would have similar consequences for meat, marriage, and other good gifts of God, which most prohibitionists aren't willing to grant.

The point here is that it is absurd to argue that the ancient church did not use wine or thought doing so was a sin in itself. One can argue that they were in error or lacking in wisdom in this, but the historical fact of wine's common and sanctified use in the early church through the about 1800s is indisputable.

As for the Synod of Laodicea, my argument remains unchanged (and unanswered) from above: the rule is against taverns, not wine or other fermented beverages themselves. We would need further explanation from a reliable source to extend this prohibition to all alcohol in se.

As for 1 Tim 3:3, other translations, which are commonly considered reliable and are much more widely used, render it "not addicted to wine" (NASB), "not a drunkard" (ESV), "not given to drunkenness" (NIV), and "not a drunkard" (NAB). So what's your point? --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dismiss abstinence as "ascetic" or call it whatever name you will - the point remains: the article has stated what it does not demonstrate: that drinking was universal and undisputed for 1800 years. How is it enough for the article to have merely an additional word: "virtually", but still not include within the article this actual evidence of abstinence (i.e. evidence like what is on the talk page)?

P.S. Can't someone ever add even a "neutrality disputed" tag without the tag being quickly removed? :-) --Nephate (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources are provided for this claim, and they also describe the viewpoint you are advocating as a minority view that is out of step with the wide-spread agreement on the facts of the case. The article as it stands represents a broad consensus of historians, theologians, etc. from Jewish, Christian, and secular traditions and the literature they have produced on the subject, and it also gives space to those like yourself who take the minority view.

To reiterate, the point here is that it is absurd to argue that the ancient church did not use wine or thought doing so was a sin in itself. There is no serious historical argument on this point. One can argue that they were in error or lacking in wisdom in this, but the historical fact of wine's common and sanctified use in the early church through the about 1800s is indisputable.

The problem with your argument about taverns etc. is still equivocation -- e.g., taverns are not identical to alcohol. Then as now, one may avoid taverns and yet still drink in people's homes, in communion, etc., so a proscription on taverns is not sufficient to prove that alcohol itself was banned. Your source does not challenge the consensus view (moreover, this is not the place to challenge it). Hence, I will again remove your POV tag. If you want a third opinion, feel free to ask for one. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not verifiably or undebatably Protestant and therefore should not be listed as such in the Moderationism section. Therefore, I moved it to right after Eastern Orthodox. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fit my explanation in the edit summary, so I'll put it here. I neutralized some recent edits by User:Nephate, the main thrust of which was to emphasize the word "forever" in two biblical passages and show that the restriction on kings is not explicit. Presumably Nephate is objecting by these edits to the phrasing that wine was forbidden only "at various times." The first two verses given certainly mention perpetuity, but the first just as clearly restricts the anti-drinking statute to times "when you go into the tabernacle of meeting."

The second concerning the Rechabites is nowhere considered normative for others, and if we should understand it as such, we should also be forced to become nomads as well. They vowed never to drink wine, live in houses, or plant fields or vineyards, not because of any "threat to wise living" from these practices, but because of their commitment to a nomadic lifestyle by not being bound to any particular piece of land (Bruce Waltke, Book of Proverbs: 15-31, p. 127). In Jer. 35, the Rechabites's strict obedience to the command of their father (rather than their nomadism and abstentionism) is commended and is contrasted with the failure of Judah and Jerusalem to listen to their Father (see vv. 16f).

The third regarding Kings from Pr. 31:4–7 is the best support for absolute restriction on rulers and judges, though not on commoners who should receive wine and strong drink from the ruler (vv. 6f). Waltke again says, "A total prohibition, says Ross, 'would be unheard of in the ancient courts,"[fn 43: Ross, Proverbs, p. 1128.] and v. 6 assumes that the king has wine cellars.[fn 44. Meinhold, Sprüche, p. 518]" (p. 507). Moreover, Proverbs is commonly recognized as an instruction manual for princes, and these verses should be read in that context. "The epigrammatic nature of the proverbs in general concentrates on the negative side of wine and beer in this proverb [Pr. 20:1]. In 21:17 and 23:19-21, addiction and/or over-indulgence in drink or in olive oil and/or meat leads to drowsiness and/or poverty; in 31:4-5 to the miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, in 3:10 and 9:6 wine and beer function as symbols of prosperity and the good life. The same ambivalence is found elsewhere in the Old Testament." So taken as a whole, rulers are not forbidden all wine and strong drink; rather they (and by implication, others) should be judicious in its use. Waltke is certainly voicing the broad consensus (Jew, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, conservative and liberal, secular, etc.) on this issue. Even abstentionists like Methodists McClintock and Strong see this as the biblical view, though they see other pragmatic reasons for opposing alcohol.

For these reasons, I have removed these marked-up verses and have restored the previous text. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the footnote on Adam Clarke's view of the meaning of 'wine' in the Bible from his commentary on Genesis 40:11: "And I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup. From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape, without fermentation. The saky, or cup-bearer, took the bunch, pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the [yayin] of the Hebrews, the oinos of the Greeks, and the mustum of the ancient Latins."

The rightness or wrongness of Clarke's lexicographical assertion is not at all at issue since we are only seeking to establish his view of alcohol itself, regardless of what it is called. I removed the citation because it is not relevant in the place where it is given because it discusses only lexicography, not the use of alcohol.

I infer (correct me if I'm wrong) that User:Nephate wants to use the quote to establish that Clarke, in the very least, held this lexicographical opinion (which admittedly is quite uncommon among non-prohibitionists, but still not obviously relevant here), or perhaps that he was not a moderationist at all. The quote establishes the former claim, though not without problems (see below), but not the latter. Clarke's comments on Lev 10:9, on Deut 14:26, on Ps 104:15, and on John 2:8 prove that he approved of temperate drinking, even of "strong drink" (sekar).

Moreover, he certainly regards the wine (yayin) in Ps 104 to be alcoholic. We might speculate that he includes juice/wine at any stage of fermentation under the term yayin, but other possibilities include that he changed his mind one way or the other, or that this is an inconsistency in his writings. In any case, this opinion does not militate against his evident moderationism. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Was this statement noticed? "It is not intimated, even in the most indirect manner, that these guests were at all intoxicated." (John 2:8, Clarke) --Nephate (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Comment on Genesis 40:11 is now in a different place. --Nephate (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So Adam Clarke believed "yayin" and "oinos" were (sometimes) unfermented and that these words did not mean exclusively fermented wine. --Nephate (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No that statement wasn't missed. Clarke exegetes John 2 as any good moderationist would (cf. John Gill's exposition of the chapter on that same website, for instance) -- viz., that it was real wine and that drunkenness did not result. Was it noticed that Clarke said, "'But did not our Lord by this miracle minister to vice, by producing an excess of inebriating liquor?' No; ... Our Lord does not appear to have furnished any extra quantity, but only what was necessary." That is, he he provided not an excess of intoxicating liquor but only what intoxicating liquor was necessary for the party to continue temperately (Gill suggests that it was enough for the hosts to keep some afterward, too).

Clarke's other comments confirm his moderationism. On Ps 104:15 ("wine which makes man's heart glad") he says, "Wine, in moderate quantity, has a wondrous tendency to revive and invigorate the human being.... This is its use. Those who continue drinking till wine inflames them, abuse this mercy of God." Unfermented juice has no inflaming effect and cannot be so abused. On Dt 14:26 ("You may spend the money for ... wine [yayin], or strong drink [sekar, which Clarke defines as "any kind of fermented liquors"]... and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household."), after referring the reader to his definition of sekar, he says "This one verse sufficiently shows that the Mosaic law made ample provision for the comfort and happiness of the people."

Add to that his statements such as "I have a bottle of wine at Haydon Hall, which wine has been in the bottle ninety years, and if you (still looking at the gentleman,) will pay me a visit, you shall draw the cork." This could hardly refer to a bottle of grape juice.

To claim that he and the other early Methodists were against, not just distilled liquors, but also temperate use of wine is historical revisionism plain and simple. I know of no source supporting such a claim, and several (some friendly to the temperate cause) that make the opposite case -- the condemnation of wine did not arise until later. See the article's sources.

As for your movement of the citation on Clarke's definitions, you have synthesized by applying his definition of "ancient wine" to the English term "wine" as used in Doctrine and Discipline. In the first place, there is no claim that the ancient and modern terms are equivalent (cf. Clarke's use of "wine" above), and in the second place, Clarke was not responsible for D&D, so his definitions don't apply there anyway. On the contrary Wesley, who was the abridger of the Articles in question, gave up both meat and wine as a health measure but still took it in communion (cf. [8]) and near the end of his life even published a letter with brewing tips for malt ale in the Bristol Gazette.

Also, I infer that you are under the impression that "a dram of any kind" would forbid wine, beer, etc., not just distilled liquors. This is a simple misunderstanding of the term "dram", which is an apothecary's measurement of "physick" (i.e., medicine), which included drams of distilled liquor like brandy, rum, or whiskey. Dram also had the meaning approximately equivalent to our "shot", as in "a shot of whiskey." It is the non-medicinal shot of hard liquor that Wesley forbids, not literally all drams (cf. Wesley's advice to Adam Clarke).

Compare this passage from a letter by Asbury (emphasis added):

It is with regret that we have seen the too frequent use of ardent spirits, dram-drinking, &c. among the professors of religion. We have endeavored to suppress the practice by our example; it is necessary that we add precept to example. We do sincerely think it not consistent with the Christian character to be immersed in the practice of distilling, selling, and drinking an article so destructive to the morals of society."

and this passage about Methodist pioneer Robert Boyd and his band society:

Not long after his conversion he was asked to become a class leader, and consented on condition that he was "not to speak to anyone who took the bottle, either to take the dram, or even to pass it to another." It was the custom in that place to pass the bottle of rum around at all gatherings.

and the sermon from Wesley that you quoted in the article (emphasis mine):

...liquid fire commonly called drams or spirituous liquors. It is true, these may have a place in medicine; they may be of use in some bodily disorders, although there would rarely be occasion for them, were it not for the unskilfulness of the practitioner. Therefore, such as prepare and sell them only for this end, may keep their conscience clear. Therefore, such as prepare and sell them only for this end may keep their conscience clear. But who are they? Who prepare and sell them only for this end? Do you know ten such distillers in England?

Thus, "a dram of any kind" in context means "a shot of any variety of hard liquor". Since it is no longer a common phrase, I will elide it to prevent confusion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has: "Coke and Asbury comment ... 'St. Paul does not complain of [the lay Corinthians'] drinking the wine at the Lord's supper'..." In this article, what is the point intended by the use of this quote? The Methodists have not limited the "cup" to ministers only. But Methodists like Frances Willard would hardly insist that the "cup" would be alcoholic wine. Keep in mind that Methodists have a prominent part in the expanding Temperance movement. Nephate (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These early Methodist fathers' main point is to argue from the scriptures against the contemporary Catholic practice of giving the wine to the priests only, and in making this case, they indicate that wine in communion is appropriate, provided that it is taken temperately, i.e., without drunkenness like the Corinthians. That's the rest of the quote after the ellipsis. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What if the "cup" of the Lord (in 1 Cor. 11) were not assumed to be alcoholic? Then Paul may have no reason to mention, in this passage, the disapproval of drinking and drunkenness. (In any case, Paul was hardly happy about what they were doing.) "One is hungry, and another is drunken." Satisfaction is a better word to contrast with hunger. The word translated drunken is not always used of things that are able to intoxicate at all. I don't know that anyone disapproves of people (at least in their own homes) having a proper satisfying amount of bread and having a proper satisfying amount of grape juice (cf. "fruit of the vine"). But when people came together at church, and the poorer Christians did not have enough food and drink to be satisfied, then others present should be respectful and not satisfy themselves in their presence. Didn't they have houses to eat and drink in? Users: wouldn't you all acknowledge that drinking alcohol (or at least great drinking) is sacrilegious, and very improper - at least within a church gathering. So then, would you all acknowledge that this passage is not sufficient to prove that drinking is necessarily alright - either in church or elsewhere?

"Thirty years before the temperance movement got its legs, Francis Asbury pressured the Methodists to renounce liquor. Almost a century before abolition took fire, he denounced slavery. He was the greatest of the American circuit riders and preached his last sermon on March 24, 1816, in Richmond. ([Glimpses #141: Francis Asbury; Christian History Institute]) 203.132.83.130 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See the citations in the article (e.g., note 39) for the broad consensus among Jews, Christians, and others that "wine" in the Bible is virtually always alcoholic and that Jesus used fermented "fruit of the vine" at the Eucharist just as the Jews used it at Passover and in other religious ceremonies -- it is far from sacrilegious.

As for Asbury and the other early Methodists, you are mistaken to think they were against all alcohol in principle. Yes, they opposed "liquor" (n.b., that term usually refers to distilled beverages and excludes fermented ones); and yes, some advocated self-imposed ascetic regimens that eliminated meat and wine from the diet, but this was not a requirement for all and did not eliminate it from its place in the Eucharist. It was later temperance advocates who expanded the cause to include all alcoholic beverages (see this paper pp. 8f, for instance).

Consider the quotes from Wesley and Clarke elsewhere on this talk page and in the article, and see this book, which proves the early Methodists were not opposed to alcohol in moderation. Asbury himself said in his journal, after arriving at a host's house, "We asked for new wine; but find the old is better: the fermentation is done." He, like the other early temperance advocates, opposed "ardent spirits" but not wine, beer, cider, and other low-proof drinks. You are free to partake or not as your conscience dictates, but you may not revise history. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article Christianity and alcohol, while including many valuable points, overstates a small part of Christian tradition on alcohol, omitting virtually all major contributions of Christianity to the production and uses of alcohol in such Christian countries as Italy, France, Germany and Spain to name a few. In its present form, it is seriously biased. It should be either renamed or significantly broadened. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Christianity and alcohol correctly mentions very first miracle of Jesus at the wedding, but only in terms of the Eucharist, but not in terms of the vastly different cultural interpretations, that followed. Christianity and alcohol differed greatly among Christians, of example between Puritanical Protestants and Roman Catholics: Historically, to most Catholics, Christianity and alcohol are in harmony, excesses excluded of course. This view is not shared by all as this article shows.

(2) Christianity and alcohol fails to point out, that Christianity contributed in many regions to the development and sophistication of alcoholic beverages, sometimes in the name of religion “VINO SANTO” and that it was a part of an overall Christian interpretation of life and fun. (Think France)

A way of life. In large parts of Europe, including Italy, Spain, France, Germany and other countries, Christianity and alcohol were in great harmony, as wine cultures developed in Catholic monasteries. In the northern regions, Benedictine monasteries made a living by producing various kinds of beer, which was to be consumed not only by the monks and not only on religious feast days. (After the reformation Saint Ignatius sent a bunch of Jesuits to Germany to take care of “the infidels” , and they reported back about an awful German custom of beer drinking, asking for permission for the import of Italian wines, which Ignatius ruled out. They had to drink the local stuff.)

(3) The article, by repeatedly talking(correctly) about Christian condemnations of sinfulness of drinking, fails to mention that – Puritans etc excepted - Christian condemnations often took place in an overall context: Any overindulgence of anything is sin, not just of alcohol.

(4) Christianity and alcohol vastly and consistantly overstates very limited Protestant tendencies such as: “During the 19th and early 20th century, as a general sense of prohibitionism arose, many Christians, particularly some Protestant… Not true. Prohibinionists were effective in the USA, Period. To the degree they existed in other countries at all, they were fringe and failed, including in Protestant Europe. They were virtually non-existent in fun-loving. Beer drinking wine consuming Catholic continental Europe.

(5) Some detailed observations on Christianity and alcohol:

(5 a) Christianity and alcohol seems ignorant of Medieval monasticism, and therefore overstates. Each monastery was legally and organizationally independent according to canon law and had its own rules (save the rule of Saint Benedict). Therefore the following sentence may be true to same but not all monasteries: “The medieval monks were allotted about five liters of beer per day, and were allowed to drink beer (but not wine) during fasts. (5 b) A second problem in the same section: Benedict of Nursia … offers the concession of a quarter liter (or perhaps, a half liter)[107] of wine per day as sufficient Wrong. He conceded a HEMENA of wine, and left it to generations of monks to find out what this old measure means, a quart? A glass? A Gallon? Nobody knows. Check the Rule of Saint Benedict fo details

(6) Can Christianity and alcohol be fully described by a bunch of theological quotes? (If so, you forgot an 19th century theologian: Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there’s always laughter and good red wine. At least I’ve always found it so. Benedicamus Domino.)

In my view, theologians do not constitute christianity. Their opinion on a secondary topic like alcohol is of marginal importance at best, save the self-evident condemnation of over-use. The topic could therefore be called: Theological views on alcohol or something lke this.

While there is some really good work in this article, there are other biases and errors as well, but for now, these six points should be sufficient.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosius007 (talk • contribs)

I want this article to be high quality and neutral, so let's work through your concerns. It's interesting that your main concern is that the article has too much emphasis on the negative view of wine in recent parts Protestantism, since most of the criticism of this article (here and in the edits to the article) comes from precisely that quarter alleging to much emphasis on unanimity and the positive relationship between them. The article must pay attention to the subject of divergent opinions since they are important for the development of theology and for their historical effects (e.g., the temperance movements and prohibition), and as an indicator of its importance, you may view the large volume of literature on this subject, both scholarly and popular. The topics covered also reflects the coverage in the various Christian encyclopedias and dictionaries (Schaff-Herzog, McClintock and Strong, Easton's, etc.). Here are my thoughts on your specific criticisms so far.

First, you suggest that the article "omit[s] virtually all major contributions of Christianity to the production and uses of alcohol." True enough, though it does make general reference to it under "Middle Ages". The article is not complete in this area, and any contributions you could make (with sources, of course) would be welcome.

Now responding to your #1: With regard to the wedding at Cana and the Eucharist, the article says (notes omitted), "The Gospels record that Jesus himself miraculously made copious amounts of wine at the wedding feast at Cana, and when he instituted the ritual of the Eucharist at the Last Supper during a Passover celebration, he says that the wine is a 'New Covenant in [his] blood,' though Christians have differed on the implications of this statement (see Eucharistic theologies contrasted)." Admittedly, the section on the bible is compressed -- intentionally so since there is a separate article covering the topic. However, I don't see how this sentence frames the wedding miracle "in terms of the Eucharist," as you charge. Rather, it simply mentions the two most significant instances of Jesus and wine in the Bible. One is not set in the terms of the other.

Your second point under #1 is that "Christianity and alcohol differed greatly among Christians, of example between Puritanical Protestants and Roman Catholics." Actually, I think the article and its sources claim the opposite, and at some length. It says that for the first 1800 years of church history -- which includes Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants from Luther and Calvin to the English Puritans to the American Pilgrims -- there was virtual unanimity on the matter of alcohol. (Your use of "puritanical" in a general sense of "rigid" rather than referring to the Puritans is confusing in this context since the Puritans themselves had a very positive view of wine. See the article and its sources, especially West's Drinking with Calvin and Luther which gives a pre-temperance history of Protestantism and alcohol.) Gaining traction in the early 1800s, the temperance movement involved many Protestants and some Catholics (e.g., the famous Fr. Theobald Matthew). While temperance eventually transformed into prohibition, certainly not all who favored abstention moved on to prohibitionism, but it was around the same time that the "two wine" theory arose, changing the interpretation of narratives on Cana and the Last Supper.

The view of the article is to take the broad consensus view (held by Jews, Christians of all stripes, and secular scholars) that the two wine theory is false and that the traditional view of these passages (and the rest in the Bible) with respect to alcoholic beverages are basically accurate. The two wine theory does get some space here, but since those who oppose the theory vastly out-number those who hold it, neutrality is preserved.

I addressed your #2 above. I'd only add that not every anecdote about Christianity and alcohol need appear here. This is an encyclopedic summary of accepted knowledge on the subject, not an exhaustive treatment of it.

On #3, again, I think you don't have a clear view of the historical Puritans. The article even quotes American Puritan Increase Mather to give the historic view: "Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil." As far as overindulgence in general, perhaps more could be said, but the article does indeed place it in just that context (notes omitted): "The virtue of temperance ... became one of the four cardinal virtues under St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. Drunkenness, on the other hand, is considered a manifestation of gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins as compiled by Gregory the Great in the 6th century."

On #4, you are mistaken. The biggest emphasis on prohibition was certainly in the US among Protestants, as the article also says, but (what we now call) the UK had its share, as did other countries like Sweden. Please read "Temperance Movements" in the Catholic Encyclopedia to get details on the international effect, particularly among Catholics in Ireland where something like half the population of 8 million took the abstinence pledge from Father Matthew.

On #5a, you may be right that the claim is too general, but I think the article, as written, accurately reflects the reliable sources that are cited after that sentence. Can you supply reliable sources that correct or contradict the ones already there?

On #5b, the Rule of St. Benedict itself is cited and linked to in the footnote, and I am very aware that we are not sure of the meaning of "hemina," which is why I gave two different, reliably sourced claims of what it was. However, I seriously doubt your apparent claim that Benedict intentionally left it as a mystery for his followers. The context indicates that he intended it to communicate a specific volume for purposes of nourishment, but unfortunately not everyone had the same definition of that unit of measurement, so there is some ambiguity.

On #6, the article is more than a collection of quotes. While it certainly contains some quotations, it consists mainly in material drawn from reliable sources that discuss the topic at hand, including theological sources but also historical sources (e.g., in the sections on "Wine making in biblical times" and "Temperance movements"). As far as the emphasis on theological understanding, the main sources informing and recording the Christian understanding of alcohol, from the layman up the pope, patriarch, or general assembly, are the Bible and Christan tradition. So with the exception of some possible additions on Christian brewing and wine making, I wonder what you would suggest as an alternative. In any case, expansion and possibly correction, rather than renaming, seems to be the order of the day.

--Flex (talk/contribs) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the detailed and factual reply, I will detail your comments tomorrow, just this generalizazion on your general question: I wonder what you would suggest as an alternative. In any case, expansion and possibly correction, rather than renaming, seems to be the order of the day.

• Christianity and alcohol needs the sociological dimension (to compliment the theological tradition, which is really well done). I would add the Weberian perspective (Max Weber Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism) -- limited of course to life style and alcohol consumption and culture.
• Ditto for the Catholic culture experience (which in my view and in my interpretation of Weber is different (hedonistic) from the Protestant experience).
• Almost completely missing is a major part of Christianity: Orthodoxy! They are Christians too and do have a distinct relation to a.
• More references to other "vices" when warranted. Attitudes towards alcohol were often a part of attitudional patterns. (I just finished reading a 1832 sermon of a Reformed Royal Court preacher in Stuttgart, who considered drinking and eating the vices of the rich, and sex the vice of the poor, because it dos not cost anything. -.)) )

Yesterday I tuned in a nice Austrian TV programm on alcohol consumption in the US. It stated that early alcohol consumption (like early sex) often takes place in a car. The American Liquor store, bags for alcohol, prohibition of alcohol in restaurants in many Southern states, no alcohol sale Sunday mornings, .... American inventions, customs with religious roots? If so, the article should indicate that. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I would also like to see Orthodoxy better represented, but from what Orthodox contributors have told me (above and at my talk page), I take it that it's not so different from the Catholic view and history. Generally the farther from the English speaking world one gets (and Orthodoxy has generally not been highly influenced by the Anglos), the less influence prohibition has had, the less interesting variation can be found on the topic, and thus the less reliable sources can be found treating it. So Orthodoxy gets a few general mentions here, but it has not been my priority for new material. (Of course I would be delighted if a knowledgeable person could add sourced contributions in this respect.)

As for sociology, its expression here is wrapped up in the historical dimension since we're describing the sociology of it through the ages. Again, there's really not too much variation until around 1800, and the intro gives a succinct summary of the history/sociological dimension:

Throughout the first 1,800 years of church history, Christians consumed alcoholic beverages as a common part of everyday life and nearly always used wine (that is, fermented grape juice) in their central rite — the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. They held that both the Bible and Christian tradition taught that alcohol is a gift from God that makes life more joyous and that overindulgence, which leads to drunkenness, is a sin.

Most of the sections under "Alcohol in Christian history and tradition" also treat the sociological dimension to some degree (e.g., "wine was 'a common beverage for all classes and ages, including the very young; an important source of nourishment; a prominent part in the festivities of the people; a widely appreciated medicine; an essential provision for any fortress; and an important commodity,' and it served as 'a necessary element in the life of the Hebrews.'; "[The Pilgrims] served alcohol at 'virtually all functions, including ordinations, funerals, and regular Sabbath meals.'"; etc.). I'm fine with adding more (sourced) description of Catholic practice and attitudes, but I tend to find some sociological investigations too speculative and rather unencyclopedic. I find that a more anthropological approach, emphasizing description rather than analysis, conforms better to the goals of the Wikipedia.

I agree that more needs to be said about the 20th century, and that is in the plans. (Most of the things you mention about the US are legal vestiges from Prohibition.) I'm all ears if you think more need be said otherwise.

I'm not clear on what you would add with respect to vices and "attitudional patterns." (As for drunkenness being the sin of the rich, I have found some contradictory statements on the matter, at least when it comes to ancient times. Some insist it was quite common, while others suggest that it was only for the rich. See here.)

Anyway, feel free to add (sourced) info to the article. We needn't discuss it here first, unless its controversial. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this article has strong points and shortcomings. It contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. I refer especially to sentences with up to 10 quotes. Please improve the article at once or discuss proposed changes here. Wikipedia proposes that you may "edit the article to add more encyclopedic text or link the article to a page of quotations, possibly one of the same name, on Wikiquote". Good luck --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is considerably different from Martin Luther's views on Mary, which I tagged with {{quotefarm}} and which you compare to this article. There, entire sections are made up of nothing or almost nothing besides primary source quotations (cf. WP:PSTS), [and if the quotes were removed that article would have far less substantive content]. Here, I have a prose summary with quotations from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (most of which could qualify as secondary sources in their treatment) supporting the prose, [and if the even if the quotes are deleted from the footnotes, the substance of this article would remain unchanged -- it might still be hyper-referenced, but it wouldn't qualify as a quotefarm. Hence, I think the two cases are not as parallel as you have suggested].

I admit that the sentence with many footnotes (n.b., not quotes) is less than ideal, but that section on the nature of alcohol in the Bible has been in dispute from prohibitionists (as this talk page and the article's amply history demonstrate). I haven't found an ideal way to improve it. I could delete the quoted text from my footnotes, leaving only the page numbers, and move the quotes to Wikiquote. But that seems to make this article much less accessible, so I have temporarily ignored the guidelines until I can find a better solution. If none can be found, I suppose I'll have to follow that path.

In any case, the quotations here are in the footnotes, are used as references to summary prose, and come from varied sources. Thus, the "References" section may be a quotefarm, but the subsections of the article itself are not. I'll adjust the tags accordingly.

As for other shortcomings, you never responded to me in the previous section on this talk page. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) (Updates in [] made at 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC).)

As a member of WP:WINE who does not have very strong feelings about the article's subject or have contributed to it, I must say that I fully agree with Ambrosius007 on this point. Most of the time, we have the problem with Wikipedia articles that they are too weak on quoting sources and providing inline citations. Therefore, we are generous in pointing newcomer editors to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Here, I would say that we have the opposite problem. This article has currently 220 separate references (and I guess about 400 occurences of references). That is roughly the same number as my Ph.D. thesis, and I can guarantee that not one sentence of my thesis had 20 references in one single sentence as the third sentence ("The biblical languages have...") of the section Alcohol in the Bible. 20 references in one sentence!!!! In my mind that is not the style of an encyclopedic text readable by the reasonably well-informed general public, it is the style of very heavy-footed academic writing directed at a small number of specialists. I'm surprised to see it listed as a WP:GA because in my opinion it does not fulfill the criterion "well written" under WP:GACR. Put quite simply, if I see text looking like this when looking for general information, I would usually stop reading and go for another source. Tomas e (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that particular sentence needs to be adjusted. The multiplicity of sources was intended to give examples from the broad consensus that wine in the biblical times was indeed alcoholic, but that can be done sufficiently by narrowing it down to the few that make the point about consensus explicitly. The many sources attached to the view that wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic were added mainly by supporters of that (minority) view, and I didn't want to discard them outright lest it seem like I (or any other contributor) was trying to silence their view. But there, too, one or two should be sufficient.

What should be done about the rest of the article? With a few exceptions, most of the article does not suffer from that specific problem. Rather, there are just a lot of footnotes throughout, which is not inherently a problem (cf. Barak Obama, which has almost 200 refs and is an FA). Many of these were because a vocal minority disputes the consensus account, so notes were required or there'd be (and have been!) {{fact}}s and contradictory changes all over the place. In some cases, multiple notes could be combined into a single note, but this negates the ability to cite the same location (and perhaps quotation) in multiple places with <ref name="Lala_P.42"/>. So for consistency's sake, all individual notes seems best. What would you suggest instead?

Anyway, I want to see this article flourish. Let's take Christianity_and_alcohol#Winemaking_in_biblical_times as a specific example. How would you rework that section with regard to footnotes? --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now someone says here are "too many quotations" and another even says "one or two should be sufficient." Users: for what it's worth, can you recall complaints at the time when most of these listed quotes were for the so-called "established view"? Then someone dared to add a similar number of opposing quotes. But to be fair with Flex, Flex "didn't want to discard them outright." Nephate (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problems around the huge number of quotations in this article could just be solved by quoting directly from the Bible itself instead of quoting from commentary (no matter how scholarly) on the Bible. 70.151.178.24 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)MH 15 Jul 2008

First, there is only one section that deals with alcohol in the Bible directly because that subject is covered in the main article on the topic, Alcohol in the Bible (cf. WP:SUMMARY). There, you will find plenty of citations to the Bible and a number of quotes as well. Here the coverage is purposefully a summary since the article must cover the whole scope of Christianity -- scripture, tradition, history, etc.

Second, in this context, that would likely constitute original research due to its disputed use of primary sources (cf. esp. WP:OR#PSTS).

Third, I will reiterate that the "huge number of quotations" are nearly all relegated to the footnotes. Personally, I prefer citing the relevant text in the source in some instances rather than giving a bald citation of a book and page number, but YMMV. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The Hebraic opinion of [alcoholic] wine in the time before Christ was decidedly positive." The article also claims it was "a necessary element in the life of the Hebrews."

"Hebraic opinion" -> practices the article claims are decidedly encouraged by the Old Testament itself:

That which is "like a viper": was it truly necessary according to the Holy Scripture? Even a less dogmatic defender of alcoholic wine may admit that the Old Testament hardly has a "decidedly positive" view of drinking what Proverbs 23 says is "like a viper." Furthermore, the priests were (to say the least) hardly encouraged to drink what is "like a viper."

"Hebraic opinion" -> practices encouraged by many Hebrew people who disregarded the Holy Scripture:

The LORD decidedly rebukes the broad consensus of Israelites: "There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land." The Israelites, by some broad consensus were increasingly acting as though "swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery" were somehow alright. Yet this common practice would still not be enough to prove that the Old Testament itself necessarily encourages these things - even in any amount, small or great.

Likewise, "all tables are full of vomit and filth" and even "the priest and the prophet" had come under the influence. Yet (to say the least) a common practice of drinking would still not be enough to prove that the Old Testament itself necessarily is "decidedly positive" about what is "like a viper."

So don't you think the article needs correction? (Don't you also think the statement about "Hebraic opinion" may need more specific terminology?) Nephate (talk)

The full sentence to which you are referring reads:

The Hebraic opinion of wine in the time before Christ was decidedly positive: wine is part of the world God created and is thus "necessarily inherently good,"^[citation] though excessive use is soundly condemned.

The full quote includes a summary of the negative mentioning of wine. Several other places in the article also emphasize the positive and the negative together, e.g., "... alcohol is a gift from God that makes life more joyous and that overindulgence, which leads to drunkenness, is a sin;" and "...on the whole, the Bible is ambivalent toward [alcoholic beverages], considering them both a blessing from God that brings merriment and a potential danger that can be unwisely and sinfully abused." See especially the reliable sources referencing this second quote, and see also the quotations from Chrysostom and Mather later in the article.

In short, the broad consensus view of this matter is rightly represented in the article and has appropriate (some say, superabundant) citations. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual The sites were blacklisted as spam. The .edu links are to personal pages funded by the alcohol industry and whose host presents extreme POV as sourced, objective articles...the article linked to may be innocuous, but most of the links to further articles are usually not...as clicking on the "More controversies" link on that page will show. The editor created hundreds of articles and protected them via numerous sockpuppets, and, although not the case here, is most likely still trying to get the links reintroduced. A google news search on Hanson really doesn't bring up the number of WP:RS ghits other researchers do. Flowanda | Talk 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On reading that discussion and scanning a few of Hanson's edits and pages at Potsdam, I didn't find anything that would warrant the label of "extreme" (except the sock puppeteering), but rather he seems like a critical voice on some issues with an apparent (though not certain) conflict of interest because of his funding source (but cf. [9]). Admittedly this scanning was rather cursory, but I also confirmed that I added the ref here, not him or one of his socks. In any case, I have removed the references to his article on the history of alcohol. (Note also that when you removed one ref, it was attached to a direct quote which was then incorrectly attributed to another source. I have fixed this and removed a third reference to that article that was missed.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick scans reveal very little about anything; extreme POV may be more about the quantity of edits over the quality, or the willingness and ability to argue whatever it takes to keep your edits and links intact. And the NYT column is not applicable here; we're discussing sponsored personal pages on an .edu site, not official research. Flowanda | Talk 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)