Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alcohol in the Bible/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted per individual GAR and comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
An individual GAR was done last year as part of the GA Sweeps project. This review was inconclusive after much discussion. Given the controversial nature of the content of this article I felt it important to submit the article to a community reassessment. Since it is part of the GA Sweeps project a decision regarding its status will need to be made. I am seeking community help in this. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry the previous individual review can be found here, it is also transcluded on the article's talk page. Rather than rehashing the issues raised in the individual review I think it best to refer you to the actual review so you can read it yourself. H1nkles (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't see whjat is controversial in the article. There are two 2nd opinions on the GAR. No action has been taken since August 2009. If you aren't happy with it then delist it. If you feel that it meets muster keep it. But please finish teh GAR off one way or the other. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks the controversy revolves around whether or not Jesus drank. Not that I, as the reviewer, have to dabble in the controversy, it's just that when I stepped into the review I had no idea how contentious it would be. The automatic knee jerk reaction to delisting is that it is prompted by personal opinions about content. Your opinions make sense except that another user, David Fuchs, kept it held and didn't really want to touch it. If it is as simple as you say then I'll delist and let the consequences roll. If there are no other thoughts in the next couple of days then I'll pull the trigger. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any comments from David Fuchs in the GAR - how did they keep it held? With regards to whether or not Jesus drank wine, the best that can be said is that the Bible, in the form it is known to Christians, doesn't really confirm one way or another. The whole problem with the article is that every phrase in the Bible has been translated and rewritten several times from unknown sources so it really is not in any way a reliable source for anything. All that can be reported is the opinions of Biblical scholars, as long as they are all attributed as opinions not fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will delist. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any comments from David Fuchs in the GAR - how did they keep it held? With regards to whether or not Jesus drank wine, the best that can be said is that the Bible, in the form it is known to Christians, doesn't really confirm one way or another. The whole problem with the article is that every phrase in the Bible has been translated and rewritten several times from unknown sources so it really is not in any way a reliable source for anything. All that can be reported is the opinions of Biblical scholars, as long as they are all attributed as opinions not fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks the controversy revolves around whether or not Jesus drank. Not that I, as the reviewer, have to dabble in the controversy, it's just that when I stepped into the review I had no idea how contentious it would be. The automatic knee jerk reaction to delisting is that it is prompted by personal opinions about content. Your opinions make sense except that another user, David Fuchs, kept it held and didn't really want to touch it. If it is as simple as you say then I'll delist and let the consequences roll. If there are no other thoughts in the next couple of days then I'll pull the trigger. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't see whjat is controversial in the article. There are two 2nd opinions on the GAR. No action has been taken since August 2009. If you aren't happy with it then delist it. If you feel that it meets muster keep it. But please finish teh GAR off one way or the other. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)