body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Moved article[edit]

My first edit in this article[1] was moved from Alcoholic beverage#Drug were I wrote about it first. --David Hedlund (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alcohol is a drug[edit]

The name of this article, alcohol (drug), will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug.

Drug facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) is one of many articles that missed this point at several places. For instance, the lead said: "Drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA), also known as predator rape, is a sexual assault carried out after the victim has become incapacitated due to having consumed drugs or alcohol."[2] In fact, alcohol is the most commonly used predator drug in DFSAs. --David Hedlund (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

plus Added I replaced "alcohol or drugs" with "alcohol or other drugs" in over 100 articles. --David Hedlund (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what sources David? In every one of those 100 places did you also add 1-2 good secondary sources supporting this? Note, I do not disagree with you. The point is, your opinion does NOT matter, on this or other subjects; editor opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. If you continue to see WP as a place for you to promote particular opinions without providing a firm basis in scholarly citation—as opposed to the opinions of subject matter experts, whatever those opinions might be—you and we are in for real trouble. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly I linked alcohol (drug) in articles whose context was drug-related, medicine-related, sobriety, related to religious laws or alcohol laws, or if the point was to consume alcohol in general, rather than alcoholic beverages in particular. --David Hedlund (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new article headed in the wrong direction[edit]

I will make 3 simple suggestions, so that I do not have to become a scourge to this article:

All I have to say on this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PoV flag[edit]

I have opened a discussion at wp:ANI as I am concerned by the widespread editing of articles ranging from Andy Rooney to Sleep. Looking at the statement about the creation of the article for the purpose of making it clear that the Alcohol is a drug, it seems clear that a PoV (one I think I probably would support, but that is entirely a personal point of view) push is the stated intention of the article and associated widespread edits.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be "Ethanol", not "Alcohol"[edit]

The article repeatedly uses the term "alcohol" - even in the lead! - incorrectly. "Alcohol" is the name of a class of chemicals. It includes hundreds of compounds, most of which are not consumable. For example, methanol (wood alcohol) is an alcohol. Isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) is an alcohol. The word "alcohol" should be changed to "ethanol" in the lead, and in at least enough other places to illustrate that we know what we are talking about. I see that this article has been controversial, so I am not going to boldly change it right now; I'd like input from others about how Wikipedia uses the word "alcohol". --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If experts agree on this then it should be changed. I have made some changes in the article but don't know whether they will be well received. The article is confusing. Wahrmund (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the good faith edit, but I reverted it. In CHEMISTRY, an alcohol is an organic molecule with an -OH group on it. Most have no psychoactive effect and are not even consumable. It's only in MEDICINE that "alcohol" is considered a psychoactive drug. Overwhelmingly this is ethanol, although I see the author has provided a few poorly-sourced claims that other alcohols can be included in the category. I'd like to make that clearer in the lead - that when we say "alcohol" in this context we are talking about ethanol - but again, it may be that Wikipedia allows the use of "alcohol" as synonymous with "drinking alcohol" so I'll wait for more input. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this must be clarified. Alcohols are a diverse group of organic compounds characterized by having one or more -OH functional groups. That therefore includes glucose and many other sugars, glycerol, phenol and many other compounds that have no "drug" implications whatsoever, some of them essential constituents of our diet. The article needs to be totally clear about what alcohol (drug) means in this context. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's work on a better wording for the lead. Here for reference are the current lead sentences: In medicine, alcohol, colloquially known as beverage alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a class of chemical compounds[3][4] with anxiolytic, euphoriant, depressant, hypnotic and sedative, and physical dependence effects. Alcohol is one of the most commonly abused drugs in the world (Meropol, 1996)[5] and part of the drinking culture. How about something like this, feel free to edit. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(draft lead sentences) Some alcohols, usually ethanol which is commonly referred to as "alcohol" in this context, are consumed for enjoyment, for recreational purposes, or for their anxiolytic, euphoriant, depressant, hypnotic and sedative effects. The most common mode of consumption is the drinking of alcoholic beverages; it may also be consumed via inhalation or other routes. Alcohol is one of the most commonly abused drugs in the world. (Meropol, 1996)[1]
ok, but still lacks balance. It still allows the interpretation that other alcohols are significant drugs. Overwhelmingly, the alcohol used as a drug is ethanol. The drug use of all other alcohols is trivial by comparison. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, let me try again. I agree with you BTW. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(draft lead sentence 2) Ethanol, commonly referred to as alcohol in this context, is widely consumed for enjoyment, for recreational purposes, or for its anxiolytic, euphoriant, depressant, hypnotic and sedative effects. The most common mode of consumption is the drinking of alcoholic beverages; it may also be consumed via inhalation or other routes. Alcohol is one of the most commonly abused drugs in the world. (Meropol, 1996)[2]
Better. I would say is widely consumed, but otherwise ok. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like that; added. Anyone else want to chime in, or shall I go ahead and make the change? I don't want to drag out the discussion because the article is controversial and is getting a lot of attention right now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and add it. It may not be perfect but it's a lot better than what is there now. Further input welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the current version even better. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1010220-overview
  2. ^ http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1010220-overview

Fusel Alcohol[edit]

This sentence is misleading and is not supported by the cited book:

However, in other beverages, such as Korn, vodka, and lagers, the presence of alcohols other than ethanol is considered fusel alcohols.[1]

  1. The book does not specifically call out the three alcoholic beverages shown, so listing them is WP:OR,
  2. More importantly, the wikilink to fusel alcohol misrepresents what the book has to say about fusel alcohol:
  • The wiki article states that fusel alcohols are byproducts known in German as "bad liquor" that may or may not contribute to hangovers.
  • The book states that fusel alcohols are called that because "their formation from amino acids are in conformity with each other" and "are considered to be important aroma factors".

I believe the sentence should be deleted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Template:Drugclassbox[edit]

Can anyone please add Template:Drugclassbox to the article? --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the documentation and talk page of this template, I don't think it applies to alcohol. If, indeed, it does not, that further calls into question the appropriateness of this as a stand-alone article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks as if that infobox is intended for "drugs" in the sense of "medications" - not "drugs" in the sense of drugs or abuse or recreation, which I think was the intent here. So the infobox is not appropriate, but that does not necessarily imply that this article is not appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, although I have my doubts about the article. However, given my response to David's question, above, as well as the many concerns noted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#alcohol_.28drug.29_and_related_changes_to_.22over_100_articles.22_-_User_talk:David_Hedlund.E2.80.8E AN/I, and that he was conditionally unblocked "on the understanding that [he will be reblocked if you immediately return to making the same edits [he was] making before]", I am surprised and disappointed by his edit to add the infobox. I will be noting this and recommending a reblock at the referenced AN/I section. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Reblock_recommended JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pharmacology[edit]

I recommend benzodiazepine as a template to make this article pharmacological. --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop, and consider self-reverting all of your changes to this and any/all related articles. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table of beverage alcohols[edit]

I just want to suggest that the table of beverage alcohols that used to be in this article would be appropriate to include in the alcohol by volume article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope and purpose of this article[edit]

There appears to be major confusion about what "alcohol" means in the context of this article. Before it makes a complete fool of itself we need to define its scope and the reason for its existence as a separate article (on which topic I must concede that I am a sceptic).

Its creator started the article with mission to state that "alcohol is a drug" and later posted a template stating that it was not to be confused with ethanol, (despite the fact that ethanol is the only legal alcohol in a significant concentration in alcoholic beverages.) There followed a period of development in which there was discussion and tabulation of alcohols beyond ethanol, including alcohols that are flavor constituents of alcoholic beverages.

So what alcohols are of interest to this article? In the alcohol world, ethanol, methanol and isopropanol are among the simplest possible inhabitants. Alcohol groups are everywhere. The hydroxyl group is one of the fundamental groups of the organic compounds that make up life, as are carboxyl, carbonyl, methyl groups etc, and is almost ubiquitous. If we are seriously concerned here with the pharmacology of all alcohols then we have to take on board the facts that the following compounds are also alcohols: Aspirin, Paracetomol, Morphine, Codeine, Nalbuphine, Oxymorphone, Naloxone, Tubocurarine chloride, Lorazepam, Propofol, Vitamin D, glucose, glycerol, menthol. Are we seriously suggesting that we open this article up to discussion of all alcohol "drugs" (itself an ill-defined term) and essential dietary constituents that contain -OH groups. The idea is risible. I think this article stems from the misguided desire to state a point of view about alcohol abuse, and that its scope has not been properly thought through. I suggest that there is nothing in this article that cannot be condensed into brief sections in other articles if it is not already there, and that this article does not need to stand alone, is not justifying its separate existence. I suggest that anything of any value is moved to an appropriate article and that this article be closed. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree completely. But, let's see what others say. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should all just restore the content that he removed from Alcoholic beverage that he used to make this jumbled mess of an article and let this be deleted as a WP:POVFORK.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He also moved a lot of content from Ethanol and other articles when he created this mess, and that needs to be restored too. Thomas.W talk 12:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also not the first time he's done this. Alcohol and health was created when he split it off from Alcoholic beverage last year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that there is really no need for this separate article. I also agree that all the stuff about other alcohols is unnecessary and potentially confusing; ethanol is the only one that is used as a "recreational drug" - there really aren't any isopropaholics! - and as I suggested above, we should make it clear that we are using "alcohol" as a synonym for "ethanol". I have a question though: when he put information here, did he remove it from other pages? In other words if we nuke this article, would we be losing valuable material that we used to have? And does this article contain new material that ought to be put in a more appropriate place? It is going to take a LOT of knowledgeable volunteer time to sort this out. I'll help, but it's such a tangle I don't know if we can ever put it back right. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. ...and of course we can't decide at this talk page to delete it; if we get consensus here that it should be nuked, we still need to take it to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He moved, as in added it here ([3], [4]) and deleted it on the source article ([5], [6]), when he added large chunks of text here from Alcoholic beverage and Ethanol, and probably did the same on other articles. So we can't just nuke this article, the material has to be added back to the articles he took it from. An additional problem is that he, judging by his list of contributions, has moved material back and forth between a large number of articles, and has also both merged and split articles as he pleased, apparently without any preceding discussion. Thomas.W talk 15:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree with Thomas.W, clearly he shifted chunks of text from ethanol and elsewhere and those chunks must be identified and restored, provided they were not created by him and already part of his POV rant. Otherwise, we clearly need to identify where he has damaged articles and revert them to their original state. Big job no doubt. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding prior issues noted, I was unaware. I just would like to suggest that we be careful to divide and conquer the issues as needed. I see three:

  1. What to do with pieces moved from other articles - I suggest list them here, then editors can work on restoring the moved information, piece by piece.
  2. What to do with this article - after 1. is accomplished, an AFD seems appropriate. I think waiting until the moves are all done is the best way, but I am often wrong.
  3. Issues with the editor (e.g., unblock, topic ban) - discuss at AN/I, not here.

Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the use of "alcohol" without specifying we mean "ethanol" is also present in the Alcohol and health article. That will need major work too. As for our discussion here about this article, it should be noted that David Hedlund cannot participate in the discussion - or for that matter the ANI discussion - because he has been blocked again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At User:David Hedlund's request, I am mentioning that he's done some editing to User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug) as an update to this article. I don't know what the differences are, but it may be worth a look. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks like block evasion - effectively he is continuing to produce this material despite being blocked. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. He is asking for others to look at the edits he made in his userspace before being blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Melanie is right, he made those edits just before he was blocked. He tried to continue editing after he was blocked too, by copying that whole page to his talk page, but it was removed by an admin for being an inappropriate use of the talk page while being blocked. But even if it was inappropriate it wasn't block evasion, because block evasion involves creating a new user account while being blocked, or editing as an IP while being blocked, which he hasn't done AFAIK. And I don't think he will either. Thomas.W talk 20:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was that admin. I think he's potentially a good contributor. and I'd like to see him unblocked with restrictions, but we'll revisit that on his talk page in a month or so. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree (especially with Plantsurfer) - scope issue around ethanol/alcohol / POV fork, better to restore content to the original articles and delete. I'll add a hatnote here to indicate the main articles. Unmessing. Widefox; talk 07:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed course of action

How about this course of action:

  1. Go through the "What links here" list and unlink this article, replacing them with links to more appropriate articles if possible. Most of the chemical or drug-related links could be replaced with a link to ethanol. Links in the context of beverages should be linked to alcoholic beverage, and links in the context of alcohol strength or content should be linked to alcohol by volume.
  2. Once the "what links here" list is cleaned up, move this article to Draft space, out of main space.
  3. Move pieces of this article into more appropriate subjects. The table of alcohol constituents as a byproduct of fermentation would fit nicely in alcohol by volume for example.
  4. Once that is finished, delete the draft.

I don't believe this article should be deleted outright due to the large number of existing links that will be broken. The piece-meal approach I describe would be least disruptive. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this approach. I think it will be up to volunteers to do it all; I haven't seen any indication from David that he is willing to help undo what he has done. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, he can't help undo what he's done, because he's blocked. It's up to us. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And BTW the only way this will work is to first delete all the templates from the bottom of the page - because as far as I can tell, they all generate "what links here" listings to everything on the template. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly done... I must have fixed over 100 of them. There are about 40 main space links left. There are plenty of alcohol-related articles that serve as appropriate substitute links. Depending on the context, I linked to alcohol consumption, alcohol intoxication, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, driving under the influence, alcohol by volume, ethanol, alcoholic beverage, and others (sometimes with a bit of copyediting to make it work), or I simply removed the link. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. No more main space articles link here. I also deleted some redirects. A handful of user talk pages and Wikipedia-space pages now have redlinks but that isn't a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steps 1 and 2 described at the beginning of this section are now complete. This article is now in Draft space. There's also material that can be drawn from User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Amatulic, that was a heroic job! I did a few of them, but there were hundreds. I will help with step 3, but not today; it's a holiday here. Point of procedure, to avoid duplication of effort: If we move a section or partial section into another article, should we delete it from this draft, or record here on the talk page that we have moved it, or what? If we find a section we feel has no redeeming value and should be deleted along with the article, should we say so here? --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section by section review / changes[edit]

These are the sections of the article. Should we comment here about what should be done/has been done about them? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend blanking out sections as they get merged, to avoid confusion.

At first glance it seems obvious to look at the articles with the same title.

We already have Alcohol consumption, which redirects to Alcoholic beverage#Human consumption, a section that no longer exists in that article probably because David pulled it out of there and put it here. I wouldn't object to putting it back, or even making alcohol consumption a separate article.

Also, we already have articles on alcoholism, alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence. These seem to be obvious targets for those sections.

Alcohol-related crime already redirects to alcohol abuse so maybe we could merge it there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is going to be a tough job. David didn't just pull material out of existing articles that we can put back. He created separate articles also, and distributed content among them. Alcohol and health for example, used to be a redirect, but he rewrote it as a full article on its own a few months ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just going to add my two cents given that I've done major rewrites to high-traffic articles on drugs of abuse (e.g., methamphetamine). To satisfy summary style and organize the information in all the associated drinking alcohol articles, there should be a single parent article on drinking alcohol (which in turn would be a sub-article of alcohol), in which all other related articles (e.g., alcoholism, alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, Alcohol consumption, etc) are summarized. In my opinion, distinguishing ethanol/drinking alcohol from alcohol isn't that much different from disambiguating amphetamines and amphetamine.
Creating a navigation template for this class of articles would probably help too, but there needs to be one main/parent article on drinking alcohol according to WP:MEDMOS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE "there needs to be one main/parent article": I couldn't find that at WP:MEDMOS. Did I miss it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MelanieN: Sorry for the late response - I didn't see your reply until now. I was making a reference to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Edit: That statement was really unclear, my bad. I meant the layout/format of that parent article needs to conform to MEDMOS, not that the policy indicated a SUMMARYSTYLE layout. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Bikermanish, Doc James, While many of the changes are good, I am concerned that recent edits have resulted in a substantial loss of content. Compare this version [7] with the current version [8]. Additionally, the new content has disrupted the previous layout which followed WP:PHARMMOS, a style guide which I believe should not be departed from without good reason.

The furious pace of edits on this fairly new article by a two new accounts (Givemeabreak123 being the other), one of whom clearly has prior editing experience, also raises some questions about a possible connection with David Hedlund who advocated for the creation of an article under this name. Sizeofint (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, while I am in favor of consolidating, I am not certain if removing all information on health effects from related pages such as Alcoholic drink is the way to go about this. I think a better approach would be to include this information WP:SUMMARYSTYLE where appropriate. Sizeofint (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sizeofint My efforts were mainly to try to restore the layout per PHARMMOS. If you wish to revert back to here and discuss I have no issue with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sorry. My concerns are more about Bikermanish's changes. I tagged you because you have recently contributed to the article. Sizeofint (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of the new additions were poorly sourced or not sourced at all, the pharmacology section was nearly gutted with little explanation, and a great deal of less than ideal content was imported from Alcoholic drink. With better sourcing, some of the content may be worth adding but it is not there yet IMO. Sizeofint (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mind[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_(drug)#Adverse_effects

This section needs expanding. Alcohol hinders the mind, reducing coordination, reaction, judgement, etc. Benjamin (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a POVFORK and should be deleted[edit]

Putting it bluntly in the section title. This article is an unresolvable WP:POVFORK right from its title, and was created with that in mind by a now-indeffed (for the fourth time) POV-pushing editor. It has been used as a WP:COATRACK, and was hastily assembled by cutting parts out of more NPOV, better balanced articles. I propose, plainly, that this article be disassembled back to the appropriate original articles, and the title either outright deleted, or at the least made a redirect to ethanol, the only substance for which the title really applies (ignoring for a moment isopropyl's use as a topical disinfectant, which itself is alcohol-as-a-drug, meaning the title of this article is completely inappropriate). Frankly, it should have been done years ago, from the beginning, as a prompt and blunt reversal and refutation of the obvious from the start POV-pushing. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not qualified to assess the article's content, but ethanol as a recreational drug is an important topic and requires an article of some sort. Over the last few days I've been looking at wikilinks to Alcohol. I have retargetted several hundred to here, plus smaller numbers to Liquor, Alcohol (medicine), etc. A quick search suggests that thousands more wikilinks should point here, though I'll pause my changes while the page's future is in doubt. I would even go so far as to suggest that Alcohol should become a disambiguation page with this topic listed prominently. Certes (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced we need all of these overlapping articles:
and I bet that list is just the tip of the iceberg. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The long-term effects of alcohol misuse is of immense public concern and interest and receives enormous research attention. Given alcohol is so heavily researched and can adversely affect a person in so many ways in the short and long-term we do indeed need a wide array of articles on th3 subject matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I don't doubt that there's a series of articles needed. I just doubt that this article, with its current title, born of a POVFORK, can ever be an NPOV part of that series. It should never have been restored mainspace from its draftification.
Ethanol should be about the general physical chemistry of the substance. Alcohol and health should be the main article on the health effects of ethanol consumption. Part of me doubts we really need separate articles for short- and long-term effects, as those articles already get into a level of detail not necessarily appropriate for a general interest encyclopedia, but I can see treating them as daughter articles of the alcohol and health article; a once over to avoid too much redundancy is not a bad idea. The alcohol (medicine) article should probably be retitled Use of alcohols in medicine, or maybe just Alcohols in medicine, being it covers more than one type of alcohol, and is about their use in the field of medicine, not a single medication called "alcohol", which the title, with it's incorrect use of a parenthetical disambiguation, misleadingly does. Alcoholic drink is essentially an article on alcohol as a foodstuff, and the varieties of manufacture and tastes; it should include pointers to the health-related articles, but someone wanting to know the difference between whiskey and rum doesn't need to be hammered over the head with the health concerns. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading this, was going to suggest template, but it has already been done (Template:Alcohol_and_health). Bod (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it shouldn't be the primary consideration, we need good destinations for wikilinks such as
These are the most popular types of inexact wikilink that I've been finding and fixing. Certes (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first should point to ethanol, as that is the substance being used; grammatically it is the noun. Alcohol and health might also be a good target, but we have to remember that that is a daughter article that expands on one aspect of the substance that is named, which is ethyl alcohol.
The second most definitely should be ethanol, as that's talking about the composition of a mixture, and should point to the top level article on the substance; we are not here to state the "why" of its presence, just the "what" is present.
The last should state "alcoholic drinks company". They're not distilling fuel ethanol, they are specifically producing alcoholic beverages to drink. (As a side note, the move of that article was lousy, being itself pushed by a guy who has admitted he wants to purge Latin influences from English, making it a POV issue as well, but I digress.)
That second example to me is why this article's title exceedingly inappropriate; choosing it as a link is inherently editorializing, in that it assigns motive instead of objectively stating basic facts of what is present. That's exactly what the originator of this POVFORK wanted to do, by his own admission. Why we continue to allow that is beyond me. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here from the note at WT:PHARM. Could someone please explain to me what, exactly, is the POV being discussed here in relation to POVFORK? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The now-indeffed user who original formed this article admitted his intention was to characterize all drinking of alcoholic beverages as a form of recreational drug abuse akin to illicit drugs like cocaine and opiates. The article was specifically intended with that in mind, right down to the title equating the term alcohol with drug.
His creation of this article subsequently cut-and-pasted a lot of material out of other articles, which were rendered less complete, and dumped them here without any balance. This instead of the prior structure that accurately depicted ethanol as not just a drug of abuse. These are the sorts of edits that lead to a block that was only lifted when he agreed to a topic ban, which he promptly violated. There is definitely a place for articles discussing the health effects of ethanol consumption, and that it has psychoactive effects that are desired by those drinking it, but the express original purpose of this article, from the title on down, was to emphasize a POV. A better, more objective treatment would reject this POV and the structure Bay arose from it. oknazevad (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I understand much better now. When I first looked here, I took "Alcohol (drug)" to mean "drug" in the expansive sense that also includes aspects other than "drug of abuse", but I agree entirely that a fork page focused on the "drug of abuse" aspects is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't read any of the article text, but this article is structured as a pharmacology article about ethanol. Deleting it would be a terrible idea. Fixing issues in the text or merging non-redundant content into ethanol would be more appropriate. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel this article should be kept too. It would be insanity to delete this article about the most popular recreational drug on the planet bar none.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading both of your comments, I realize that those are good points. It seems to me that we should: (1) have a page on the pharmacology of alcohol, and (2) include prominent coverage of its widespread use as a recreational drug. I agree entirely. The issues that we have to figure out, however, are whether the page here treats the recreational use in an unbalanced way that needs to be revised and corrected, and also, given the large number of related pages that we have on the topic, whether there should be some merging of pages. In other words, not deletion but rather revision and potentially merging. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the thrust of my proposal. Whatever reorganization we do, however, we need a more descriptive and neutral title. This one stinks and is WP:POINTy. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why, Oknazevad, do you feel describing alcohol as a drug stinks, is pointy and non-neutral?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because ethanol is more than a drug. And it's a misapplication of parenthetical disambiguators, which are supposed to classify an ambiguous title. A title such as the aforementioned "Pharmcological effects of ethanol" would be a more descriptive and neutral title, at the least. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Errr, a drug is something that exerts pharmacological effects on the body or cells - be they therapeutic or recreational. I am still left with the questions of why ethanol is more than a drug (in relation to this article) and why the current title is not neutral.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ethanol also supplies nutritive calories, so it's also a food, technically. More importantly, though, is that ethanol as a substance is also a fuel, and a solvent, and a plethora of other uses. Coverage of the effects on human health of drinking it and the social and sociological aspects of that are legitimate topics. Trying to WP:COATRACK that in a single article while also categorizing it as purely a drug by misusing parenthetical disambiguators is is not neutral. And the fact is, it wasn't intended to be; the originator and titler of this article admitted such plainly. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the small section about alcohol and nutrition might be better suited in the ethanol article and could be moved there. If you really are still adamant that you are unhappy with this article then I suggest that you nominate it for a formal deletion discussion. It is not COATRACK at all because our drug articles are meant to have sections on adverse effects, impact on human health, social and sociological aspects. Not trying to be funny, but have you ever actually read a Wikipedia drug article (prescribed or recreational) before? Can I suggest that you read MEDMOS#Drugs,_treatments,_and_devices. It is irrelevant that the creator of this article was blocked indefinitely (for copying and pasting), because he was correct that an article of this name is needed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only about 15 percent to 20 percent of this article focuses on the pharmacological effects of alcohol so I do not support a rename of this article to that title. Like I said above, if anything, we have a shortage of content and articles on alcohol given its immense popularity and enormous research attention it gets into its various effects and consequences. So, I would support a brand new article called pharmacological effects of alcohol being created by someone who wants to expand content there but still retaining this article. We don’t even have an article called alcohol and crime nor alcohol and dementia, like I say, we have a shortage of articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I renamed the nutrition section, and I think it might be better moved to somewhere else. I've been changing my mind back and forth a lot about this page, but at this point I agree with Literaturegeek's analysis. There's a bulleted list of related pages near the top of this talk section, and we could consider whether anything should be recombined in some way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought this article had been deleted four or five years ago after some POV disputes. It certainly has problems. I would support a move to Pharmacological effects of alcohol consumption, if we think we really need something in addition to the articles on Alcohol (medicine), Alcohol and health, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, and Long-term effects of alcohol consumption. Or maybe all of those should be merged into one article. But I basically think the article is a duplication of Alcohol and health with some POV and general sloppiness mixed in. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original version of the article was indeed deleted as a POV fork, and was later, in good faith, restored, but it still has the stench of being a POV fork on it, and is duplicative of articles with better, NPOV titles. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the confusions we have is we have articles titled using the common name for "ethanol" which is "alcohol" such as this one and we have articles titled using the chemical name for the group of compounds which includes "ethanol" but also a number of other compounds which is alcohol such as "alcohol (medicine)". I think at this point using the common name is not appropriate as it makes things confusing and we should move entirely to the technical (correct/less ambiguous) terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed moves

Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an FYI, I moved Alcohol (medicine) to Alcohols in medicine, as that tile was also suggested by a comment on that article's talk page. oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex causes societal damage[edit]

"Alcohol causes considerable societal damage including suppression of psychological inhibitions, which may increase the risk for activities such as impulsive sex, drunk dialing, and alcohol-related crimes such as public intoxication, and drunk driving."

This implies impulsive sex and drunk dialing causes considerable societal damage. I fail to see how. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On further thought, I think the paragraph in its entirety is unnecessary. Psychological inhibition should be discussed elsewhere (in the lede?). Fail to see how impulsive sex and drunk dialing cause social harm. Public intoxication and drunk driving are redundant given their own separate headings (public intoxication covered under alcohol-related crime. I'm just going to remove it. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German link[edit]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkoholkonsum would I think be adequate --Stephphie (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing primary-sourced medical information[edit]

This article looks to be filled with WP:MEDRS-violating claims that fail to cite proper studies, such as meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Although I expect moralistic objections to removing "alcohol bad" claims, Wikipedia is not here to be your Mom. Wikipedia is here to describe only acceptably-sourced information. MarshallKe (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of the word Alcohol[edit]

Should it be added to the history section of the page on alcohol that the word comes from Arabic?

asking for an opinion from more experienced wikipedians. The Duke of Mars (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The –somewhat complicated– etymology of the word is explained at Alcohol (chemistry)#Etymology, and in a briefer manner in Ethanol#Etymology. It's not strictly necessary, but a concise etymology section would probably also be fitting for this article (don't add it to the history section, which should remain the last section in this article, but create a new etymology section directly below the lead). If you wish, you can copy some of the content from the articles I just linked to, provided you follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense, for dictionary-related content, to refer users to the Wiktionary entry at wikt:alcohol? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed, if it needs to be included, I would not do it under the lead, but at the end (as with history) Bquast (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit suggestion for the "Metronidazole" section[edit]

This section starts out by stating that one of the most important drug/food interactions is between alcohol and Metronidazole but the rest of that section doesn't explain why it's important in any way. I was wondering if it'd be best to remove that line or, if it exists, add to that part to explain why this interaction is so important. Erzloq (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done No source, no reason to keep it. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion - Alcohol-related crimes[edit]

I already merged Alcohol-related crime into Alcohol (drug), but @Piotrus objected and reverted the blank-and-redirect part. So here's a formal topic to decide whether to actually merge. I think the pages have substantial overlap and the information from Alcohol-related crime works well in the discussion of social harm in Alcohol (drug) (permalink). Many of the crimes were listed on both pages under similar headings. And once the information is in Alcohol (drug), it's only logical to avoid being WP:REDUNDANT and turn Alcohol-related crime into a redirect. I also removed the term alcohol-related crimes as it didn't seem to add much beyond its dictionary definition - the second source [9] in the lead mentions that the term is not precisely defined and varies across publications. The other argument for merging is article size. Before the merge Alcohol (drug) was 34kb / 5144 words and the crime article was basically a stub, 7kb or 1166 words. After the merge Alcohol (drug) is 41kb or 6187 words, still nowhere near any thresholds in WP:ARTICLESIZE. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE, even if an article is notable under GNG or other criteria, it doesn't necessarily merit a stand-alone page, if it can be better covered as part of a larger article. In this case, I think focusing on the social harm the laws are aiming to prevent provides a broader context - there is a diversity of laws and what is a crime in one jurisdiction may not be a crime in another, while the social harms are generally agreed upon. It could also make sense to discuss alcohol-related crime as part of the drug-related crime article, as papers on drug-related crime generally include alcohol in that discussion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I'm here to give a third opinion. Sorry for the long delay. To answer the specific question about whether or not to merge this and Alcohol-related crime, I'm also opposed, to tell the truth, so you can stop reading there if you like I guess, but if you're curious as to why it's hard for me to explain without talking about this whole nexus of articles. My feeling about this is that crime and social harm are not the same thing—crime is based in law, whereas social harm is a much more subjective and nebulous concept. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that having a section called "Social Harm" here is needlessly editorializing and it would be more sensible to instead call it "Social Effects" in the name of neutrality.
This would be in harmony with "Health Effects"—note that although that section does give kind of a grim picture I do admit, that just kind of comes from the nature of the available medical facts. If, after a fair examination of anthropology/sociology/history/etc. sources on alcohol as a drug, it came off as largely deleterious in that sort of context as well, I think that ought to be clear just from the facts too, instead of from a rather preconceived intent to point out its deleterious effects as with "Social Harm".
As for Alcohol-related crime, that must be too big as a topic to fit gracefully into this article I would think—more than I suspect the Alcohol-related crime article really gives credence to at present. If there's any article it ought to have significant overlap with, it must be Alcohol law; in fact, I suspect that Alcohol-related crime and Alcohol law could be neatly brought together into an article called something more like "Alcohol and the law".
You can't have crime without law, and, as Mathnerd314159 points out, law varies with the locale. Therefore, the scheme that Alcohol law follows, where it goes through each part of the world, should also be followed for Alcohol-related crime; it's going to mean something very different in Iran than it will in Illinois just to give a random example.
If Alcohol-related crime was more global in scope like that, I think the case for merging Alcohol law and Alcohol-related crime would be more clear. That picture would make it easier to discuss the legal/criminal aspects of alcohol in fullness, and would facilitate bringing in doubtlessly interesting sources from sociological crimonology and legal history that could easily fall in a gap between Alcohol-related crime and Alcohol law.
So, that's my take in full: change "Social Harm" to "Social Effects" in this article and talk about alcohol's sociocultural dynamics more in general, make Alcohol-related crime more global, and then consider whether to merge Alcohol-related crime and Alcohol law into an article that's more "Alcohol and the law". Okay that's all. ;^^ 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this will making the article too long. I'd even want to make some separation for the alcohol article itself. -Lemonaka‎ 16:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Against - There are fundamentally different themes, one is is physiological effects (drug), the other is societal consequences (or actual a subset: crime). They should not be conflated. There is also a risk sigmatization of addiction to the drug.
Bquast (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visits to emergency rooms[edit]

From the article: Many emergency room visits involve alcohol use.


First, this sentence clearly means that people are drinking inside the ER as part of their treatment. Was that really the intention?

Second, this sentence implies that people are visiting emergency because alcohol itself has injured them or made them ill, which is a major claim requiring specific proof (e.g. documented number of ethanol poisonings per year, documented number of accidents proven to be primarily caused by alcohol, etc.) Or, if the claim is merely that people who are drunk often show up at the emergency department for non-medical or marginally valid reasons, then clearly state that. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories