Statescontributor
Welcome! edit
Hello, Statescontributor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Indyguy (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Alcohol in the Bible, etc. edit
Hello Statescontributor. The position that the term wine in the Bible refers exclusively to non-alcoholic grape juice is a decidedly minority position. It appears to be a position held by those Christian denominations that advocate total abstinence. Most theologians do not hold that position. While a small minority position may be certainly be discussed in the body of the article, it shouldn't take up a major portion of the article lede (the paragraphs before the table of contents). The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article body, and so should not contain information that is not stated in detail in the body. In other words, the amount of space given to a point in the lede should be roughly proportional to the amount of space it has in the body. You need to first add material into the body and then summarize it in the lede. In addition, words such as "likely" should not be used when describing a minority view.
Both the Alcohol in the Bible and the Christian views on alcohol articles already contain material discussing the views you feel are most important. You're certainly welcome to add more information, but that isn't going to change the fact that those views are in the minority and therefore cannot be presented as if they were those of most scholars. Indyguy (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, though, I hope this comes across sincerely, my position isn't one of the term wine referring exclusively to non-alcoholic grape juice (which hopefully proves itself as I am completely open to leaving the other opinion already in the article and made no attempt to remove it), my position is that there is evidence that suggests that the term 'juice of the vine' or 'wine' was used beyond just alcoholic wine as the article opens linking alcohol and wine so closely I feel it is critical to share that evidence where the clarification is needed. Because it's the 'lede' section that this takes place I feel it important to add the evidence so that section doesn't mislead. So you see my position is different than the exclusive non-alcoholic grape juice position, my position is I don't want to see the article ignoring evidence that does exist, which is what happens in the article without it. In the "Christian views" article I think it is critical to show there was more than the one view than what the article currently suggests, and that there is evidence of other views both in the early church (~200AD) and between the Reformation and the 1800's. The article currently doesn't suggest that. It opens as the resource of "Christian views" but then it says there was only one Christian view for 1800 years, however evidence of early church clergy and churches before the 1800's show that a view of abstinence was another Christian view during this time taught and practiced. Once again because it's at the introduction where the claim of only one view is made, I feel it beneficial to have the additional text at this same section to provide the additional evidence so that this section does not mislead. This is why my suggestion remains that the current opening could be improved by showing what the article claims to be "christian views", with evidence not removed of the multiple Christian views. I hope I come across as wanting to be helpful, and given the context, I truly hope you consider reverting to include the evidence I've added at precisely the point in the article where it helps to bring clarity and context to what otherwise is a single view that doesn't present all the evidence or views.
Sincerely, Statescontributor (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Statescontributor