Talk:Alcoholic beverage/Archive 1

Archive 1

EDIT

i fixed some awful coding on this page and made it actually look OK Austynhawkins (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Decreases reaction time?

I think the part where it says a significant BAC decreases reaction time should be changed to INCREASES reaction time. If it decreased the time, wouldn't that mean it made doing things take LESS time? If no one objects I'm gonna change it 76.5.154.115 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Alcohol a strong psychoactive drug?

The introductory text states that "Ethanol is a strong psychoactive drug". When I think of strong psychoactive drugs, I think of heroin, LSD, Cocaine, Opium, Morphine, etc. What is the official definition of a strong psychoactive drug? If there is no official definition, then I suggest that we remove 'strong' from the wording as it sounds like POV. 209.167.191.66 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol is not a drug... it's a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, alcohol is a prime example of an addictive, psychoactive drug. Also, like cocaine and heroin (and the other drugs you've mentioned, sans LSD), the body develops tolerance to Ethanol. Indeed it is a strong psychoactive drug by all means. —Saltywood ^(talk) 10:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't question your wisdom in this, Saltywood, but it would be nice with a citation to back up the claims in the text. It'd also be nice with a reference for the claim that it is depressive. I'm sure it can be depressive but doubt that is a general effect. At least not to such an extent that it can be said without a "but" somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakerlund (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of the "Health" section is questionable

Many studies used as sources do not disclose or consider proxy variables (unapparent variables that significantly affect the outcome than the claimed causative variables of the study), so many of the "facts" are incorrect. For example, many studies put ex-drinkers and lifetime abstainers into one group, which makes the "abstainer" group less healthy overall.

In addition, sources and facts from this article have been removed by unregistered people. One source in particular is Alcohol -- Health Benefit or Hazard?. -Usernamefortonyd

In reality, research began addressing this problem years ago and the results remain the same. In addition, many of the mechanisms whereby alcohol reduces cardiovascular disease, the major cause of death, are clearly understood. So not only is it an established fact that alcohol in moderation reduces cardiovascular disease, but we know how it reduces them. There is consensus about this in the medical research community. Medical Man 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad the negative health effects of alcohol (notably brain damage and liver sclerosis) outweigh the positive (lower LDL cholesterol), especially since there are safer ways to lower LDL cholesterol (exercise, a diet moderate in animal fat and calories) [1]. -Usernamefortonyd

How do the negative effects of alcohol correlate to consumption? How do the positive effects of alcohol correlate to consumption? If you only experience negatives with heavy drinking, and only positives with moderate drinking, then moderate alcohol consumption is perfectly safe. But I don't know what the actual figures are --- do you? Ninjadroid 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am more convinced of the alcohol industry's consensus about the positive effects of alcohol than that of the legitimate medical community. We must seriously consider the source. In The Biochemical Basis of Neuropharmacology by Cooper Bloom and Roth, the toxicological effects of alcohol are directly implicated in a number of behavioral disorders including tardive dyskinesias. Furthermore given the addictive potential of the toxin even a moderate dose of ethyl alcohol should not to be recommended from a purely logical/academic perspective. If a consensus can be reached that the accuracy of the positive effects, outside of temporary addiction withdrawal cessation, is questionable we should consider removing such faulty claims in the interest of information integrity, in line with keeping Wikipedia a source of reliable information. I vote to remove anything that seems contradictory to scientific evidence and in this case against common sense (Alcohol toxification is a threat to the development of society). Mannaseejah|Date

Debunking the "health benefits" of alcohol

The industry would like you to think there are benefits. Check out these articles.

BBC News | Health | Alcohol Benefits Debunked

Deception in Reporting About Alcohol

-Usernamefortonyd

Apparently the only verified benefits have been from red wine due to the antioxidants in the tannins, not the alcohol. The only other benefit from alcohol, is that drinking some alcohol (i.e. wine) prior to eating will serve to kill bacteria in the food. Also, in times in the middle ages when town/city water supplies were contaminated with e. coli, it was safer to drink beer than to drink the water. --Thoric 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

However, alcohol in itself is indeed solely toxic. --Jobjörn 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So why does the article say that moderate alcohol consumption is good for one's health? -71.50.156.132

These are rasonable questions, but there are very good reasons why the article reports that moderate drinking is good for heath. The consensus within the medical research community is that the consumption of alcohol in moderation causes better health and greater longevity than either abstaining or abusing alcohol. Well known medical authority Dean Edell, M.D., asserts that "you would have to be living on another planet not to know that alcohol -- in moderation -- is good for your health."

Research demonstrates that the risk of dying in any given year is 25 percent lower for those who consume moderate amounts of alcohol. Abstaining from alcohol is a health risk factor; that is, it increases the chance of poor health and death. That’s why the science-based Harvard Good Eating Pyramid recommends the moderate consumption of alcohol (beer, wine, distilled spirits) for everyone except those with a good reason not to drink.

Many of the mechanisms whereby alcohol leads to better heart health are understood. Among other things, drinking alcohol in modertion lowers LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and raises HDL ("good" cholesterol), reduces blood pressure, increases coronary blood flow, reduces platelet aggregation, reduces fibrinogen, and increases fibrinolysis.

Some critics suggest that the benefits of moderate drinking could be obtained from a regimen of eating a very low-fat diet, vigorously exercising regularly, eliminating salt from the diet, and losing weight. However, Dr. Eric Rimm of Harvard reports that people have increases of 10 to 30 percent in HDL ("good" cholesterol) in a week from drinking alcohol. That’s much easier for most people than following a demanding diet and exercise program. In adition, the consumption of alcohol in moderation further enhances the health benefits of a good diet, a vigorous exercise program, and successful weight loss.

Of course, the abuse of alcohol can have negative health consequences.David Justin 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bunch of bias and misinformation, "David Justin" (which not a real username, just a person who doesn't want to be held accountable for their post). You're trying to make eating moderately and exercising seem like a very hard thing. Weasel words, like "demanding" and "diet", are used. You also attempt to argue that eating moderately and exercising is a complicated process by increasing the number of things one can do in your contrived list of things to do ("eating a very low-fat diet, vigorously exercising regularly, eliminating salt from the diet, and losing weight") by adding unneccesary statments - "eliminating salt from the diet" and "losing weight". The "eliminating salt" statement is not factual because sodium is a vital mineral required for vital bodily functions [2]. The "losing weight" statement is obviously there to make their list seem longer - losing weight is a result of exercising and does not need to be stated. In addition, "Vigorously exercising" and "very low-fat" are weasel statements.

This kind of misleading content does not belong in an encylopedia. You alcohol-industry beneficiaries need to take your propoganda elsewhere. -Usernamefortonyd

From your combative tone of voice, Usernamefortonyd, it is clear who the biased person in this discussion is. The health benefits of moderate (1-2 drinks/day) are extremely well established in dozens of large, longitudinal studies with all kinds of cohorts. In particular, the lower risk of cardiovascular events and better retention of cognitive abilities among the elderly stand out. The studies similarly find that both abstaining and excessive consumption raise your risks. Importantly, excessive consumption can raise risks much more than abstaining, resulting in u-shaped mortality/risk curves that have their minimum (=optimum) around 1-2 d/day. So if a person can't drink in moderation, no alcohol is the better choice without question. For the majority of people, however, moderate consumption is the choice with the best expected outcomes.

4.159.164.250 10:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol Makes your Brain Grow

Alocohol 'improves IQ'

Ninjadroid 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alchohol 'Could Reduce Dementia Risk' GBMorris 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

With alcohol now being found to cause cancer (the Who lists it as a class one carcinogen) at even less than moderate doses, perhaps it's time to eliminate the Alcohol and Health section and change it to Alcohol and Disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.150.13 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The blood thinning carcinogen:

www.naturalnews.com/025884.html

http://professional.cancerconsultants.com/oncology_main_news.aspx?id=43299 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.150.13 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist articles

Anyone writing on alcohol should check the link I just added to a bunch of articles in the British New Scientist magazine. Seriously interesting stuff here [3] Ortolan88 19:11 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)

Size of page

This drinks list is getting uncomfortably long. Any way we can split it up? Minimax

Spirits and liqueurs

"Spirits" get redirected here - so what is the difference ?

Spirits usually means distilled beverages and liqueurs made with them. But what are fortified wines or liqueurs made from wine? Rmhermen 00:21 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My American Heritage Dictionary says alcoholic beverages, esp. distilled liquors. I would redirect to liquor, except that goes to alcohol. I think alcoholic beverage is a good compromise. Wnissen 06:06 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase

does anyone know if there's a difference between acetaldehyde dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase, or if they're just alternate names for the same enzyme? i've seen several articles ([4], [5]) which use the latter name for the enzyme that breaks down acetaldehyde to acetic acid, so i'd like to add a redirect or something, but i'm just a poor layman and can't figure out what the connection is. - Esk 20:55, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

Legal status in muslim countries

I deleted the statement

... with other countries most notably muslim countries heavily restricting them.

because it seemed too simplistic and possibly inaccurate. My impression was that there is no uniformity in the legal status of alcoholic beverages among "muslim" countries (whatever that means); and that even among countries that adopt the strict Islamic law as state law would allow commerce and consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians and Jews. Is that correct?

All of these countries prohibit it. They catch you with it, the penalty is death. It is seen as a "corruption of morals", among other things. While I was in school, some teachers had been to these nations. Martial Law 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's what I call some heavy references. "Some teachers when I was in school". I live in Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where, as in most countries that accept the term "islamic" for their state, foreigners are allowed to import alcohol through their embassies, and foreign owners of retaurants are allowed to sell alcohol to foreigners. And I'm only talking about the law here. As it is a lucrative business, practice is even cooler. I don't think you could find more than 2 countries in the world that would actually apply death penalty to locals drinking alcohol, let alone foreigners. One of my best friend was found drunk in the street in Saudi Arabia (there is hardly a more muslim country) last year, and spent one night in jail, as he would have in Nevada. Please refrain from adding on subjects you have no idea of.--SidiLemine 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed Buddhism. There isn't a total and general ban on alcohol among Buddhists.

Roadrunner 05:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Underage drinking

That's one thing that bugs me about the Federal Government, how it always loves to hang highway fund money over the heads of the state governments in order to force feed legislation down the throats of the states.

Another problem is that I don't think that kids are getting the education they need about drinking. From age 6 up to the day before their 21st birthday, the message is "don't drink, don't drink, don't drink." These government people give no thought about how to educate people on drinking other than to tell them not to until they turn 21. As a result, on their 21st birthday a lot of people go out and drink themselves sick.

In my family, I was taught to treat alchocol with respect at all times, and to never drive while under the influence. That education started while I was in high school, and continued up until I was 21. My parents made sure that I had the proper introduction to alchocol. In my mind, the home is the best way to truly teach kids about drinking, and to make sure their ready for that responsibility when the time comes. I think that one of the reasons underage drinking is such a problem these days is because the kids aren't getting the proper introduction that they need.

JesseG 05:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please add information about how "the difference between U.S. and German law has occasionally led to severe problems with exchange students from the U.S. who visited Germany"? BTW, JesseG, you have excellent parents, consider yourself lucky if you don't already. :-) --Cuervo 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They probably could get in trouble with their school in the US. I'm from Germany. When I was 16 we were buying alcohol and cigarettes at a gas station. Suddenly there was this tourist from America standing in front of us. She was totally shocked when we told her that underage drinking is legal! Finally she took several pictures of us drinking and smoking in public. I would love to get these pictures :-)). Damn, we forgot to tell her that sex under 18 and prostitution are legal too (and the possession of small amounts of weed is not punished). Thank you America, I will never forget this great moment in my life :)))

Some one messed around with the entry

Looks like some one got bored and changed some of the entry around. I fixed what I could find, but there is probably more.

Effects of Alcohol

This article's section on Effects of Alcohol should reference to the already informative article on Drunkenness and Hangover. The content of this page and Drunkenness should be merged by someone knowledgable, because this page's section has some stuff the page on drunkenness does not. --Costyn 12:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intoxication

"Eight to ten drinks per hour is considered a fatal dosage for the average 120 lb person"

Not all of us are American, why is this the only measurement to not have a metric equivilant?

Ah, that's easy. There's 14 pounds in 1 stone so 120 lb = 8st 8lb in everyday units. Although I don't see how 8 and a half stone could be considered an average person though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting etymology of brandy

This article lists it as "burnt wine" while the brandy article lists it differently as "distilled wine". Can anyone that speaks Dutch comment? Is there a place in the Dutch wikipedia it is acceptable to ask in English? - Taxman 23:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Brandy is a beverage distilled from wine or fermented fruit mash. The word is from the Dutch brandewijn, meaning burnt (or distilled) wine."David Justin 04:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol percentage

I missed a bit on this (what does the 14% vol. etc... in wines and booze in general). It may well be elsewhere, though. Pfortuny 09:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"not usually consumed"

re: fermented product of "potatoes/grain." This is probably true for potatoes, but for grain it is called "beer," and at my house at least it is consumed on a regular basis. Clarify this? NTK 22:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm new here. Hope I'm not screwing anything up, but potatoes are used to make Vodka. Vodka is a major industry in Idaho because of the availability of their potatoes. 68.2.82.106 03:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)1LBatch

The intro

I changed some stuff back in the intro.

• "Regarded as a boon" - typically the word boon refers to a specific benefit, and is phrased "a boon to ..." its use here is awkward.
• Chemical dependency isn't synonymous with addiction.
• 50% of accidents where? Hope this isn't a US-only figure...
• "Alcohol abuse" is POV
• Not all governments regulate or restrict alcohol, do they?

Rhobite 04:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

We meet again? Your comments sent me to the dictionary, but . . .

• A "boon" is a "benefit" or a "blessing" as per the Webster. Nothing specific there unless it is made out to be.
• Idem for your second comment. I did a quick search. See how many bona fide references on "alcohol addiction" you'll find on any search engine. Why are we beating around the bush on this one?
• You are right on #3. I'll ammend it.
• "Alcohol abuse" is POV Please explain.
• Name one government that does not. Haiduc 11:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lethal dose

This was just added to the article:

Eight to ten drinks per hour is considered a fatal dosage for the average 120 lb person. One drink is equivalent to one shot of 80 proof liquor, one 12 oz beer, or one 4-5 oz glass of wine.

Is this "drink" a standard unit? It's not very precisely specified here. How can a fatal dosage be expressed "per hour"? And do you have a reference for this figure? --Khendon 14:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It sounds quite inaccurate to me. Beer has about 5-8% alcohol, so a 12-ounce beer is between 0.6 and 1 ounces of alcohol. Wine is 12-14% alcohol, so a 5-ounce glass is 0.6-0.7 ounces of alcohol. 80-proof liquor is 40% alcohol, so a one-ounce shot is 0.4 ounces of alcohol. So the quantity of alcohol being described as "a drink" varies by over 100% -- from 0.4 ounces to 1 ounce.

I think we might consider Dylan Thomas's fatal eighteen straight shots of scotch to be some kind of figure here. --FOo 15:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it now. I was thinking about it a little more; if nothing else, 8-10 units in one hour is clearly not a lethal dose. --Khendon 18:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although, this does raise something that should be included in the article - a discussion of common units used to measure alcohol intake. --Khendon 18:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added metric units to it with the American ones in brackets to make it consistent with the rest of the article (which uses ml)

Average fatal dose determined by weight? It's all based off of how well your liver works. Which is why someone who has a weight of 272lbs can drink 6 beers in one hour and still be below a BAC of .08, while another person with an identical build and a weight of 275lbs can drink three beers in an hour and blow over a .08. Weight is good for LEO's to make quick guesses, to determine a course of action, but it's rare that those actually come close. CPL Andy

methanol?

ummm... last time i checked, methanol is highly toxic, and can cause blindness and death. methanol was an adulterant added during prohibition to substitute for more expensive ethanol, and has NEVER been used by any legitimate producer of alcoholic beverages EVER. someone please remove it from the article. thanks -jesus shark

Actually, all alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol (some more than others). Since ethanol is an antidote to methanol poisoning, a small amount of methanol in your drink will not poison you. It is the methanol that gives certain drinks their characteristic "warmth" (or burn for those with a little more methanol). For example compare a plain grain alcohol to scotch or tequilla. If an alcoholic beverage contains too much (or primarily) methanol, that is when blindness and death becomes part of the picture. --Thoric 23:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it appears that any methanol mention has been eliminated from this article (pre-2004?), as well as fusel alcohol (which I'm not sure was ever mentioned in this article). I'd like to see both put into the article, and I'd like to know what other chemicals are in alcohol.... (and how they effect/interact with taste of the drink and health of the drinker)

~ender 2005-10-04 22:55:MST

There's a lot of things in any drink, you can't expect to list them all. all sorts of different things contribute to the flavour of the drink, although I'm not sure about the methanol being the source of the "warmth" as Thoric says. methanol and ethanol are very similar compounds and therefore take several fractional distillations to separate. However, not all fermenting mixtures will produce methanol in the first place. Vodka is usually the "purest" alcohol drink in that it is mostly ethanol and water without much else in it in any sufficient amount. However, it's impractical to purify anything that much commercially (except for use in a laboratory, and that gets very expensive). Pure ethanol and water would be colourless, flavourless (although I still think it would have that burn effect) and apparently not cause a hangover. it's the impurities which make each drink unique.--KX36 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

religious views on alcohol consumption

I think this category should be added. Should focus on which religions oppose or forbid drinking and their reasons for doing so. Mormon, Islamic, Baptist, Free Presbyterian Church, Pentecostal, et. al.

user:ted-m 00:47, 15 Apr 2005

HDL cholosterol is a form of cholesterol

See ATPIII. Please provide a reference if you still believe that HDL cholesterol is incorrect. Nereocystis 05:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually HDL and LDL are lipoproteins, little membrane-bound micelles which transport cholesterol as well as other lipids in the aqueous medium of blood. The cholesterol contained within is the same. The important differences are in where the lipoproteins traffic the lipids to and from. In the world of marketing, HDL is 'good cholesterol' and LDL is 'bad cholesterol', but they both have their own physiological functions.--KX36 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Better picture?

When one first sees this article, probably the first thing they will see is a picture. Which is a picture of empty bottles. Why in the world are they empty? I do not have a picture myself or I would replace it, but a glass of beer, a bottle of wine, a shotglass of vodka or whatever would be infinitly more suitable; in an article about alcoholic beverages, there should be a picture of the beverages themselves.

Follow the Commons link right bellow the picture. You should find one that pleases you. --Abu Badali 01:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chocolate

Should chocolate be added to the list of accepted stimulants? --Error 20:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Um...

"The difference between U.S. and German law has occasionally led to severe problems with exchange students from the U.S. who visited Germany. The problem stems from the fact that when the pupils are in Germany they are subject to German law, but as visitors from the U.S. (and pupils of an American school) they should still obey U.S. law (this argument is purely a moralistic one). Their German hosts might not have a problem serving them German beer but the pupils might be in trouble when they return to the U.S."

Is this paragraph really neccessary? It looks like some crappy anecdote more than information relevant to an encyclopedia.

It's certainly important and relevant information. I recall a news-article about some US high-school class visiting Germany, the pupils having an "a little beer is okay"-agreement, therefore drinking beer, and catching hell for it when they went back home because the powers that be reneged on the deal. On the other hand, such an anecdote might be better suited to a "don't ever trust the powers that be"-article, with a link from here. (How Americans expect kids to learn how to be responsible and civilized when they are not treated responsibly and in a civilized manner beats me, but that is certainly an observation that is not right for this particular article...) --Kaleissin 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree and just checked here before removing it. Whether or not it's relevant information for some purpose isn't really the point -- rather it's not relevant for an encyclopedia article on alcoholic beverages. Not only that it singles out Germany, but in fact the point holds for the majority of western countries. Beyond that suggesting that one is bound to US laws when outside of the US is (a) silly and (b) again, not encyclopedic. More relevant would be the fact that drinking is often off limits within the agreement between the exchange organization and the student. However if that information is relevant anywhere it's in an article on student exchange programs. (For reference I'm an American that had German students stay with my family while in high school and I've been living in Germany for several years.) Scott.wheeler 20:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm...

Theres something weird appearing at the end of the "See also" section. Appears to be a link to an article in a version of Wikipedia in another language (although to me it looks like gibberish). Couldn't figure out where it originated on page editor. See "tlh:HIq" after "Psychoactive Drug." Fuzzform 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's due to an interwiki-link to the klingon wikipedia. I've removed it. Kaleissin 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ouzo the greek olive liquor

not metioned in the chart of items use for distilling

Ouzo is not made from olives. It is made from grapes, and is subsequently spiced with anise and other ingredients. See ouzo for details. I doubt it would be practical to make an alcoholic beverage from olives; fermentation requires sugars, not oil. --FOo 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

History of fermented beverages

The original article states "Fermented alcoholic beverages have been known since at least 4000 BC." without giving a source.

However, the article for Ethanol states "Dried residues on 9000-year-old pottery found in northern China imply the use of alcoholic beverages even among Neolithic peoples.", also without a source.

An authoritative source for the 9000 year-old statement has been found at [6].

I have thus updated the original article to be "Chemical analyses of organics absorbed and preserved in pottery jars from the Neolithic village of Jiahu, in Henan province, Northern China, have revealed that a mixed fermented beverage of rice, honey, and fruit was being produced as early as 9,000 years ago. This is approximately the same time that barley beer and grape wine were beginning to be made in the Middle East."

Potato

I saw the movie The Teahouse of the August Moon some time ago, and in that movie, it was claimed that the Okinawans used to distill some alcohol from potato. I don't recall exactly, but it could be noted if it's something particular. 惑乱 分からん 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Predisposition

Is the predisposition of indigenous Australians to alcohol factual? Can anyone confirm this? If not, why is it on the page? Isopropyl 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The "theory" goes that since the Australian natives did not have alcohol before the Europeans arrived, they are genetically unprepared to imbibe... I believe that's nonsense. Anyway, I added a "citation needed" marker; if nobody comes up with a source in a reasonable time than that claim should be removed. Dmaftei 19:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the baseless assertion, which merely reflects a prejudice. There is no evidence whatsoever of a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence among Australian natives, so no one will be able to provide it.David Justin 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverages in public places

Article says:

In most European countries, eg. Poland, one has be 18 to legally buy, drink or possess alcoholic beverages. In most countries of central, eastern, and southern Europe it is also forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages in public places, such as streets and parks.

That would be central, eastern, and southern, leaving only "western" and "northern". Here in most of Scandinavia, it is indeed forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages in public places, leaving only "western". I'm not entirely sure, but I am quite confident it is forbidden there too. I suggest that we write just "In most countries of Europe" or "In most European countries". What do you think? Jobjörn 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's legal to drink in public places in Germany by the way...

It is also legal in Italy. Is that Southern Italy? 67.165.197.109 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal in Belgium too. And quite common by the way. Fred.

It's also legal in Austria Strahli82 17:11, 26 November 2007 (CET)

Legal considerations

Section needs quite a bit of cleaning up in structure terms. Also why does it talk about alcohol production being legal for personal use in new zealand? does it mean spirit production? I dont know of any countries where you can make your beer and wine. Discordance 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Brewing beer and making wine for personal use is legal in the United States. Only the distillation of spiirits is illegal.David Justin 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry i typoed I meant cant make beer and wine, and the fact that you can in new zealand is non-notable, unless it means they may distill spirits. Discordance 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to [7] it is legal to distil spirits for personal use in NZ. Dmaftei 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A listing of such laws by country would make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.David Justin 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also legal (no sources noted) to brew beer, wine and distill spirits in Australia (you mean you're not allowed to do that in other countries?). Unusually, anyone can buy the brewing equipment without being over the legal drinking age (its sold in supermarkets for beer).

The intro (again)

"Contrary to popular belief, alcohol is a drug, and is a depressant." -- is it really necessary to hammer this point home in the first paragraph? And also, what exactly is the "popular belief" about alcohol? 83.245.17.176 07:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as most people do not realise this. Alcohol is a psychoactive drug. It is a depressant, and therefore if you drink while taking other depressants, the effects will be multiplied. This is important information. What do you have against it? --Thoric 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pulque

This alcoholic beverage is made in Mexico out of a certain cactus, the smell alone will make you drunk. Then there is the more widely known Tequila, which has a dead bug in each bottle. Martial Law 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bacterial virulence

I moved this paragraph here from the "Uses" section because there are some problems with it. First, it doesn't really fit in the "Uses" section. Second, the mentioned study is not referenced, although it is referenced from an identical paragraph in the Acinetobacter baumannii article. Third, this paragraph doesn't properly summarize the information in that reference (which is only an abstract for an unrefereed poster at a conference-- not an authoritative work) e.g., the bacteria were fed ethanol, not the nematodes. Fourth, the bit about "common misconception" isn't really objective.

A recent study indicated that ethanol has been found to stimulate the virulence of Acinetobacter baumannii. Tests on infected nematode worms that were dosed with ethanol found that the worms laid fewer eggs and their life spans were only 80% of worms infected with a version of A. baumannii that didn't respond to ethanol. This study suggests that the common misconception that drinking alcohol kills infections is false and drinking alcohol may actually help the infection to grow.^

--Will.Brunner 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen up...

EVERYONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL MUST DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. THEY ONLY DRINK IT TO GET DRUNK AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THEIR HEALTH. --72.65.235.79 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a healthy individual drinking 28 standard drinks a week or less (no more than 6 on any one occasion), is not at risk from their alcohol consumption. Some studies have shown 2 glasses of red wine a night have beneficial cardiovascular effects - reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiac sudden death. W.Ross 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So - let me understand. One of the reasons you would like everyone who drinks alcohol is because they have no respect for their health, right? I'm looking for a stronger word than "ridiculous". As for "only drinking to get drunk", maybe you shouldn't go to that much high school and student parties. They're obviously not for you. If that can be a comfort to you, most non-drinkers in the western world end up, like you, on the internet, because they don't get out of their homes. Maybe you could make a precedent by managing to drink just a glass or two, without getting drunk, and you might actually learn something. If you don't understand what I'm saying, please say so, and I'll write it in caps.--SidiLemine 13:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the person who wrote the above is acting absurdly, but I don't understand the urge to insult others who refrain from drinking. You assert that people who refrain from drinking tend to have no social life and end up internet addicts(funny that you, with your social life, are monitoring this talk page), but this is rather baseless. Indeed, many under the age of the majority have robust social lives that do not involve drinking. Hence, it seems absurd to posit that the same fails for those of the majority. Given such, your post is, essentially, an admission of your belief that socialization has alcohol as a prequisite. Perhaps, you should examine your own position prior to insulting a whole class of people who refrain from imbibing psychoactive toxins...oh, and if you don't understand what I'm saying, please say so, and I'll write it in substandard english chockful of mangled grammar.Phoenix1177 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Presence of GHB/GBL in alcoholic beverages.

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that some alcoholic beverages (especially red wines) contain small amounts of GHB and GBL? Reference: http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDocPartFrame&ID=6513&DocPartID=6040

Although these small amounts would have no effect if taken alone, I'm certain that it has been proven that alcohol and GHB/GBL inhibit each other's metabolism, which would cause a lowering of dosage (of both agents).

Other's opinions? --Mark PEA 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actully, GHB/GBL increase the likelihood of death when combined with alchohol. It says so in my Health textbook.

You guys are absolutly GGRRREEAAATTT! you both are very intelligent people who have very different point of views sure it happens but PEACE AND LOVE PEOPLE no need for that disrespect.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.94.55 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam

The whole In Islam sections seems to be OR and conjecture to me. Qur'an is ambiguite on this issue? Really? --Striver 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's an allusion to the medical use authorisation?--SidiLemine 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hops

I can't believe that you didn't mention hops as a source of alchoholic beverages. I know for a fact that it's put in many beers and is even mentioned in the video game The Bard's Tale (in a song, no less).

Hops is primarily used as a flavouring and stabilizing agent not a fermentation basis.--SidiLemine 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Booze

There is a redirect to here from "Booze", and there is a village named that. is that OK? If so, there should be the diff thing on top of the page.--SidiLemine 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the Booze redirect which needs to be changed, and turned into an disambiguation page. This page doesn't need to be touched. Note that to edit a redirect you click on the special link after "redirected from". Notinasnaid 11:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Straight Edge?

Isn't it a little wierd with the link to this youth movement on this page? If this link should be here, we could as well add Alcoholics Anonymous, Rational Recovery, or a youth organization in favour of exessive vodka consumption? If it existed. --PeterKristo 07:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd indeed. There are vast numbers of articles about alcohol abuse, too many to link here, but perhaps a page collecting the links would be good (not sure what Wikipedia policies say about this). I have tidied up, added Alcoholics Anonymous and moved it and Straight Edge under teetotalism. But I have no particular attachment to them staying there. Notinasnaid 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Category:Alcohol abuse exists, a subcategory of Category:Alcohol exists, so no link pages are needed; proper reference to the categories would be good. The real imbalance, though, seems to lie in Template:Alcoholic beverages. Notinasnaid 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to a more objective article. I did'nt want to delete the link without anybody agreeing. --PeterKristo 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry

How much of the alcoholic beverages are made from Ethanol? --70.111.218.254 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All alcoholic beverages (for human consumption) contain ethanol. Notinasnaid 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Underage picture

Not sure if this picture should be up. --70.111.218.254 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful, and in what country is it supposed to be applicable (since laws around the world vary)? Notinasnaid 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive beverages

Anyone see anything wrong with this: "Alcoholic beverages include low-alcohol-content beverages produced by fermentation of sugar- or starch-containing products, and high-alcohol-content beverages produced by distillation of the low-alcohol-content beverages. Sometimes, the alcohol content of low-alcohol-content beverages is increased by adding distilled products, particularly in the case of wines."? --Guinnog 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol consumption and health section bias

While this section may only summarize what is in the actual article, it is so biased! Why does it focus so much on health benefits and not on health risks? Alcohol has far more health risks than benefits (ie destruction of brain cells, significant increase in kidney and liver disease, ect.). Look at the cocaine and meth article and there is far more negative than positive. I'm not saying alcohol is as bad as coke or meth, but it isn't too far off. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't make it a much better drug.

More needs to be said about the health risks in that section. Zachorious 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then find some citations and do it. WilyD 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is neither fish nor fowl at the moment. It goes into detail on a few topics but ignores others almost completely. It needs reducing to a few bullet points and the main articles should take the burden of detail. I'll have a go. Nunquam Dormio 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Selling hours

Did I miss it or is there no mention of the legal selling hours of alcohol? Over here in the states it is illegal to sell alcohol at certain hours of the day. Quadzilla99 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

is there a concentraceon limit

i've never seen anything over 40% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.21.191 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

There are many alcoholic beverages sold in concentrations above 40% (80 proof); for instance 151 proof rum and the higher grades of Everclear. They're generally used in mixed drinks. Above a certain concentration, ethanol is hygroscopic; it isn't possible to get 100% alcohol by distillation. --FOo 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian Drinking Age

In Australia, the age for the purchase and possession of alcohol is 18, but it may be consumed in the home or under adult supervision at any age.

Alcoholic beverage consumed in the home or under adult supervision at any age i believe is an urban myth.

Youth guide on Queensland Drinking Laws [8]

--DarkAxi0m 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• It mentions exceptions - this doesn't seem crazy - in Canada it's the same if you replace or under adult supervision with under legal guardian supervision. But a 12 year old can legally drink a beer if his mom gives it to him and they're at home.

alcoholic beverages and god

my comments on such subjects are very rare, listen with care my fellow frere!alcoholic beverages are such bad thingsa on our earth and god doesnt want them because they are evil! god be with you all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.215.77 (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

People like you really bug me. All-powerful god can't make "evil" alcohol just disappear? Or not create things that make alcohol in the first place? Get a clue. Trekphiler 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Six-Pack

When was beer (&/or soda) first sold that way? Trekphiler 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin Hangove

I don't speak Latin, and so may be incorrect in what follows; but I thought that "crapula" was Latin for intoxication. The artilce seems to imply that it means hangover. Could someone who knows one way, or the other, clarify this?Phoenix1177 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverage (Drug)

Please be fair to other drugs and add the "drug" tag to the title. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) for an example. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.196.4 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That (drug) is there because there are several articles with the same title. Cannabis is a genus of plants, including non-psychoactive varieties. When a specific Cannabis variety is used for a specific use, then it is cannabis (drug). There is only one article about alcoholic beverages. --Vuo 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sale and possession restrictions

I think this section could become too unwieldy if other countries are treated with as much detail as the Nordic and U.S. countries. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article? Discuss :) BrickMcLargeHuge 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake to have a bunch of sections that just say, "In country foo, the legal drinking age is 21" or whatever. --FOo 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BrickMcLargeHuge 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

tolerance

I just added the line about tolerance. I felt the information there (after i corrected the arithmetic) gave a misimpression about the rarity and mechanism of (survivable) BOLs near .4%, since it's reported that .45% is LD50, and "vomiting and/or unconsciousness are triggered much sooner, so this level is rarely reached unless a large amount of alcohol is consumed very quickly". The quoted section is incorrect, at least standing alone. I worked for over a year in a drug/alcohol rehab, and routinely preformed BOL tests (by breath) on incoming clients, many of whom were long-time alcoholics. BOLs over .3% were not a daily thing, but occurred many times, incl in people who were intoxicated (oc) but surprisingly functional. We also had folks over .4%, tho much less often, and we sent them to the hospital as a matter of policy -- but death in such cases was almost unheard of. Just sharing this to explain my confidence in the information, and why i feel it's a part of an accurate picture. I'm sorry i can make time only for this, and not to search out a scholarly reference. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry for the brain freeze above re "BOL" for "BAL".

Don't know if Xiaphias read the above -- i was sloppy/hasty in not linking it. And i see the link i put in edit summary didn't work; not my day. (Not alcohol-related, i can assure you. ;^) ) I bow to the feedback re subjectivity (tho it was really more vague than subjective...), but not the complete removal. First, the info as i found it was incomplete to inaccurate; and tho sourced, not checkably so. Second, my addition as it is now is both clear and unquestionable by anyone familiar with the subject -- many many chronic heavy drinkers can gradually drink themselves to very high BALs, unlike what the article had said. Third, my comrade has added unsourced material, so let's be fair... Fourth, WP norms are to *add* sources -- if nec -- to helpful additions, not to remove good info until those editors have time to find sources for every sentence. I think it's obvious which practice leads to a better encyclopedia... Finally, i changed the sentence preceding my addition so it's a bit better; but if my changes still don't please, replace them with something that keeps the article factual and informative in the way i have tried to do. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'm hardly an expert in the field; however, the information I added was based on my neuropsychopharmacology textbook, which elucidated very plainly in the section regarding alcohol that vomiting and/or unconsciousness precede lethality by a substantial margin, which effectively prevents lethality unless a large quantity of alcohol is consumed in a short period of time. So, barring the citation of some source which countermands this information, I'm inclined to leave the section as it was.

Again, I'm no expert, and I apologize if this issue is manifestly obvious to you -- I suppose a similar situation would arise if we were debating whether the Theodosian walls of Constantinople were ever breached prior to the Turkish conquest (I'm quite certain that they weren't, but I probably couldn't cite a specific reference for this information). As for why I deleted it: I generally fact-tag unsourced statements and delete unsourced numerical figures. As far as I know, both are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. I do this because I'd prefer an article to have no information over wrong information (which isn't to imply that yours is necessarily incorrect).

Anyways, sorry for making an issue of it, but I really would feel more comfortable if you've some book or journal that you can link that statement too; it's entirely possible that Dr. Meyer oversimplified the issue in his book, but barring some kind of evidence to the contrary I'll have to assume that he didn't.

Cheers, --Xiaphias (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thx for the resp. All well taken. For conversation's sake:

• Looking really quickly, i subsequently found this info at Blood_alcohol_content#Effects_at_different_levels: "For a long-time, heavy drinker, those numbers can at least double. In extreme cases, individuals have survived BACs as high as 0.914." (partially ref'd) Not an external ref, but hopefully that makes you feel more easy about the info. I assume your textbook is excellent, but was simply talking about std people in that section. Huge difference, such as why no intake at all is fine for me but potentially lethal to chronic heavy drinkers, which is another way of looking at how extreme the tolerance effect is... There's also the issue of unconsciousness before death in general, vs BAL numbers, which in this case were clearly valid only for non-heavy-drinkers.
• Re WP practice: I'd be fine with a sourcing tag -- that's why i called attn to it in the first edit summary: to invite others and to respect the very sourced context. People vary in their deletion practices: that's what reversion and collaboration and talk pages are for. ;^) I would respectfully suggest, since you make a point of it twice, that a single source, even a great one, isn't nec justification for deleting additional good info. I'd also like to add (mindful of the irony of my typing this vs looking for a source), in defense of my and *many* people's editing practice: I've occasionally dug into time-consuming editing, esp when i first got into WP. But for a while now i've had little time. I'm basically a user who "pays it back" by making quick corrections as i run across problems -- which is frequently. (And it was unusual that i even wrote in talk: i did this, again, to respect how thickly sourced the context was.) This is subideal, and not earning me any stars -- but it is what droves of the little people do at the bottom of the pyramid, and adds up to a huge contribution. Obviously, if we deleted all unsourced info, we'd set WP back a long way; incl because the next editor is more likely to source something found in the article than found by looking thru old versions... That's why i want to defend the practice of adding sources or source tags vs deleting good but unsourced info. I cld cite WP editing guidelines, but the irony is getting too thick... ;^) Hope this helps, thx for your great WP work; peace, "alyosha" (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Inhibitions

I'm going to reword or remove some of the "alcohol causes loss of inhibition" statements. Contrary to popular perception, this notion has not been demonstrated conclusively (as far as I know). Many of the effects of the social alcohol consumption are independent of any actual chemical effects – a key point to make, one which is absent from this article. Numerous studies have repeatedly indicated that a placebo can induce similar social and psychological effects. Furthermore, observations of various indigenous peoples have shown that even after heavy alcohol consumption people will not violate local taboos -- if incest is held to be highly immoral, for instance, no amount of alcohol will induce a person to engage in this activity.

Anyways, it needs to be indicated which effects are known to be pharmacodynamic, and which are not. I'm no expert in the field; surely someone more qualified than I can comment on this.--Xiaphias (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing/Biblical Interpretation

Not sure Biblical interpretation has a place in this article:

The Hebrew Bible recommends giving alcoholic drinks to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery (Proverbs 31:6-7).

Reading this passage in context of verses 4-5 seems to indicate that the point of the author is that alcohol is favorable in limited uses, that is, for the dying/terminally ill. I don't see anywhere where it indicates that the depressed should drink their cares away.

But as this, or any other reading, is just the interpretation of whomever is editing the article at the moment, I suggest that it either be removed altogether or at least discussed. I did not edit it because I wanted some discussion here first. cluth (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from Liquid Courage... LOL thats a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.245.3 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it says:

4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel -- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,

5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;

7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

In other words, it's saying that rulers -- those who have to be wise and fair -- should not drink, because it might lead them to forget lawfulness and the rights of those who rule. But the dying, those in pain, and the poor should be permitted to drink, because it will make them more comfortable. --FOo (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Loser?

What does the first line mean?

"An alcoholic beverage is a loser containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol, although in chemistry the definition of an alcohol includes many other compounds."

I'm not aware of any definition of "loser" being related to alcohol. 12.96.7.15 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)JP

That's what we call vandalism. Please revert it when you see it. --FOo (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics, Withdrawals and Speculation

It seems people on behalf of the alcohol industry had a go at touching up this article by pointing out that alcoholics are addicted partly due to genetic reasons; instead of tackling alcohol addiction, the article instead takes a turn at talking about vitamin deficiencies and speculating theories which are not universally accepted. Alcohol can kill, is extremely addictive, has withdrawal symptoms even after a short time of use and this article should be treated equally in terms of hierarchy and bias with comparatives such as cigarettes, drugs etc. This article needs to atleast have a short dedicated subheading indicating "Addiction"/"Alcoholism", rather than a misleading heading such as "Alcohol and the Health", then leading to dedicated articles regarding alcohol withdrawal such as alcoholism. This article needs to co-adhere with the structures of similar substance articles, and needs to hold the opinion of the masses in the relative society when pointing out findings, in other words, a genetic disposition which makes one vulnerable to becoming an alcoholic is far from the accepted theory amongst the medicinal society. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Archeaological evidence suggests"

Well, WHAT evidence suggests that distillation was known in China 5000 years ago? I suggest this sentence be removed until someone actually comes up with a source.

98.197.48.163 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Types of alcoholic beverages

The section on the differences in fermentation between beer and wine is grossly inaccurate. The issue is not the length of fermentation or the "(in)completeness," but rather the starting gravity/degrees Plato and the type of yeast used; wine yeasts are generally more attenuative, and in a (comparably more) sugar-rich environment. Beer fermentation is almost never stopped before it is "complete." Furthermore, the assertion that most beers are aged 1-2 weeks should be qualified to apply to typically mass-produced beers. Traditional lagers age for 3 months, and many styles of beer would never be ready with that aging process, and in these styles fermentation itself can last months. Also, beer is almost never "naturally" carbonated... only a tiny percentage of beer produced is carbonated via secondary fermentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.89.175 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Title Picture

It needs to be re-sized so as not to distort the text around it.

Sale and possession restrictions - United States

Thought I'd put a blurb in here since this is an active talk page. The list of states restricting sales in grocery stores (aka alcohol control states) had some incorrect info including my home state Michigan :) I found 4 total that were wrongly listed (Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia) based on the info listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States_by_state. Problems?Regress (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol is not a depressant. Its a mood & subconcious magnifier when drunk in exess.

Im confident that when humans get drunk, their mood and or subconcience becomes magnified. Thats why you will see some people, becoming happier. Some people becoming egotistical. Some lustful, some violent, some sad etc. An example of a reason this knowledge is important, is i saw an interview on TV recently where the mother of a murderer talked about his upbringing. She commented that one night she got drunk & all of her bottled emotions came out. My point is, they are not bottled emotions, they are artifically magnified emotions because she was drunk. Tipsy is good but drunk is risky. There is a widely believed perception out there that when one has problems a good idea is to drown them in drunkiness. This is incorrect & a mistake as it will magify them during the drunkiness. Sincerely Tim Allen Christchurch New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.181.103 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009‎

"Depressant" is a category similar to stimulant, deliriant or hallucinogen; it means a substance that diminishes the function of the central nervous system, that is, causes central nervous system depression. This is different from depression the illness or the mood. I don't have the reference, but there was a study where the intensity of emotions was "measured" and compared between sober and drunk subjects. The result was quite simple: the emotions were suppressed in intensity by alcohol. --Vuo (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find alcohol stimulating (: It'd be great if someone could find that reference. As it is now, the statement looks as if wikipedia tries to make people stop drinking--in many ways a noble cause but hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Nakerlund (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol is indeed a depressant, anyone will fall asleep if they drink enough of it, and many people self-medicate with alcohol to help themselves fall asleep (that's referred to as a "nightcap"). What you're referring to about emotions and actions above is that alcohol intoxication decreases a person's normal inhibitions on their behaviors. Hence, people doing stupid things when they're drunk that they would normally never do, they talk about their personal lives, etc. etc. I should get out my medical textbooks for references.... 68.227.38.212 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alchol as a drug

I think it is time to change the opening lines a bit.

"An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol (commonly called alcohol). Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits."

I think should be changed to;

An alcoholic beverage is a drug (drink), containing ethanol (commonly called alcohol). Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.

Also I feel this line should be removed;

"Other psychoactive drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, khat, and kava-kava, also have a long tradition of social use, but they are not as universally used as alcohol."

It's kind've a straw argument and doesn't apply to the entire timeline of civilized society. Khat is as readily accepted if not more so in Somalia than alchol. Marijuana was an excepted norm by Mexicans a long time ago before the US outlawed it. There's also a rich religious culture behind it, which alchol lacks somewhat.

Even if you don't agree with me I think you should change one or the other, the only difference between the substances is the effect itself, one is more often a liquid and we are living in an era where it is more accepted.

Personally I find the second statement a bit narrow minded, and thrown in to justify alchol's acceptance by governments over other drugs.

The first one I suggest merely because stating that it's a drink seemed silly, because obviously it's so much more :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapeen (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely oppose the first change on the grounds that it would strike the majority of readers as bizarre, but the second change is more reasonable -- maybe the statement could be qualified with in western societies? Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally food products (eg coffee) which contain "drugs" are not referred to as drugs. Alcohol falls into this category. Also, the statement that alcohol is more universally used than the other psychoactive drugs is true. The fact that it might not hold true for 100% of societies does not make it any less true- it is a generalisation. Arguably the word "universally" could be changed to "widely" which may make the sentence more correct if you follow a strict literal interpretation, but to my mind the meaning of the sentence would be unchanged. Produce evidence that the generalisation is incorrect if you want it changed. And I hate to bring this up but alcohol is not lacking a cultural background- they weren't drinking diet coke at the last supper. 121.221.86.245 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Introduction is wrong

Denmark changed their age of buying Alcoholic beverage from 15 to 16.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.168.254 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Austria

For example, in the Netherlands, Germany,[21]Switzerland, Belgium, and Austria, a purchaser of beer or wine must be 16, and 18 for distilled alcoholic beverages; however, enforcement of this distinction is often poor.[citation needed]

Well, I am from Austria and can verify this. But in some parts of Austria it is legal to buy distilled alcoholic beverages at the age of 16. (Legal_drinking_age#Europe) Tompazi (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I made the picture smaller it was covering the text. Ronin13 (talk) 12:30:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

that diagram which places alcohol in context with other psychoactive drugs is utter and complete bullshit, it was made by a fool who knows nothing about pharmacology, i dont even have time to point out all the inaccuracies but it needs to be removed from every article its placed in ASAP! in summery: heroin is physiologically very benign when used in appropriate doses, all drugs are dangerous in OD - conversely 4-MTA is a potent neurotoxin and is hardly a recreational drug that anyone encounters in the first place and on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.184.237 (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rice Beer

In the box where it shows what type of grains produce different types of alcohols, it doesn't mention beer in the fermented section for rice. Plenty of beers are made with rice. I know Natty Light uses rice (though the wiki pages just says cereal grains, if you call and ask the difference between their light beers, they will tell you it's the grains used to make them. They told me Natty Light uses rice.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Addiction and Alcoholism

"Alcoholic beverages can be addictive, and the state of addiction to alcohol is known as alcoholism." C'mon... really? I was under the impression that alcohol was merely psychologically addictive. Show me a source that says alcohol creates a physical dependence in which your body needs to consume it to function properly. Heroin, nicotine, morphine... those create physical dependencies. Ph33rspace (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you 12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.21.223 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, alright. Scratch that; I suppose it isn't really made clear as to whether or not the article is referring to physical or psychological dependence. However, I think wiki should be here to set the standard. There's a big enough difference between physical and psychological dependence to a substance and, in my honest opinion, I believe the distinction is worth making. Ph33rspace (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look here: Delirium tremens that I hope will you otherwise regarding physical addiction to alchohol. Oh, you left caffeine out of your list - if you drink more than a cup a day of real coffee, try not having any and see how you feel! sherpajohn (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tax

Is there any article to discuss the rates of alcohol tax in different countries? Umofomo (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually looking for similar information for U.S. states, and I couldn't find it. -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Try Federation of Tax Administrators - State Excise Taxes. Wahrmund (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mangaitj, Eucalyptus gunnii & Roper river alcoholic beverage

The mangaitj (beverage made from the flower heads of Xanthorrhoea spp.), the fermented beverage from the tree sap of Eucalyptus gunii and the beverage made at Roper River (from Pandanus spiralis) by the Aboriginal Australians are not mentioned. Both are fermented beverages made by soaking respectively the flower heads or the leaves during an extented period in water)

Also, in the types section a section should describe mere fermented beverages (fermented beverages which are not beer, wine or spirits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Greece

Mention is made os sap of palm under Other Sources, but no mention is made of the use of Tree Resin in Greece to produce Retsina Wine, if we're going to have a comprehensive list of other material sources then mention must be made of sources used in Greece for thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5WJF (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My removal

I have removed this passage. It is sourced directly to the Quran, and the Quran is a primary source open to interpretation. If multiple, reliable secondary sources talk about this, then it can be re-added. Merry Christmas. 122.163.189.159 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And you could say exactly the same about the Bible. Merry Secular Christmas to you too.--Misortie (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you could. Is that your justification for including that paragraph? Aditya Ex Machina 09:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, since when did I ever say that?--Misortie (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph is for discussion of my removal (I'm the above IP, logged out). So I'll assume you have no problem with my removal then. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to remark that the best source for material on this is probably "Alcohol and Islam: An Overview", Michalak, Laurence; Trocki, Karen, in Contemporary Drug Problems. 523 (2006). I can't access it myself, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That would indeed be perfect, though I do not have access to it either. As such, I don't think we should accept that paragraph on original research / interpretation of the Quran until someone who has access to this could provide assistance. Aditya Ex Machina 18:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Pricing

Hi,

I can't find anything on this article about 'minimum pricing'. This is somethign they may use soon in Scotland - a minimum price per unit. I think Sweden have already done it, so there should be some research out there as to how effective it is. Supposed (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising

What about mentioning alcohol advertising? And the drive to end it> http://www.freethebowl.com/site/free-the-bowl.html ? Stars4change (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on a safer 'drinking alcohol' with less toxic side-effects.

Can be found as an external link at this corresponding wiki-article discussion page on the material of the subject. Nagelfar (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement that the consumption of alcohol is prohibited by Islam is incorrect. The relevant text of the Koran reads as follows: 'My fellow believers, My fellow believers, do not approach your prayers in a state of drunkeness! Rather it is preferable to wait until you understand the words! There is no other prohibition in any Koranic text!Miletus (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename article before making it a good article

I propose altering the name to Ethanolic beverages as alcoholic beverage makes it sounds like other alcohols (butanol, methanol, ...) too may be in the drinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2009

Indeed. Propan-1-ol (propanol) contributes up to 20% of the intoxicating effects by distilled beverages (see w:Alternative_alcohol_use#Alcoholic_beverages_by_alcohol_type. --David Hedlund (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Expand w:Template:Alcohol and health

I suggest that we expand w:Template:Alcohol and healt in the w:Alcoholic beverage article because it describes the pathophysiology and pharmacology of ethanol in details so these templates can be removed from it:

• Template:Anxiolytics
• Template:Depressants
• Template:Euphoriants
• Template:Hypnotics
• Template:Physical dependants
• Template:Neurotoxins
• Template:Psychoactive substance use
• Template:Adenosinergics
• Template:Adrenergics
• Template:Cholinergics
• Template:Dopaminergics
• Template:GABAergics
• Template:Glutamatergics
• Template:Opioids
• Template:Serotonergics

--David Hedlund (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of countries with legislation

As pointed out by the GA review "The Center for Alcohol Policies source (whose link in the lead goes to a holding page but I assume is this) only reports about 50 countries, while the lead claims "legally consumed in most countries with over 100 countries"." --David Hedlund (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alcoholic beverage

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alcoholic beverage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Miscellany":

• From Fruit wine: G. Harding "A Wine Miscellany" pg 5-9, Clarkson Potter Publishing, New York 2005 ISBN 0-307-34635-8
• From Sparkling wine: G. Harding "A Wine Miscellany" pg 136–137, Clarkson Potter Publishing, New York 2005 ISBN 0-307-34635-8

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Milestones

Alternative alcohol use

I just started w:Alcoholic beverage#Alternative alcohol use with several subsections, which deserves attention. --David Hedlund (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Alternative alcohol use" section is a mishmash of uncited, off topic and trivial material. If there are not good reasons to keep some of the material, it will all be be removed. Sandcherry (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Solved: Alternative alcohol use created. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusion between fermentation ingredient and flavor

Neither Juniper nor Myrica is used as a fermentation ingredient of drinks, they are just flavors. --128.214.2.138 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved: The Flavoring section is now a subsection of Applications. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is overkill about health

All the information about health effects of alcohol should not be covered in such detail in an article about a beverage. That information clearly belongs in an article of its own, so this article should briefly mention it and refer to the main article. I also have thoughts that the article should also ditch other bits that (do|should) have their own article. The article needs to focus on the aspects of "beverage". — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved: Now moved to w:Alcohol and health. --David Hedlund (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alcoholic beverage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to review this. I like a nice drink like this or this, but don't go overboard, so hopefully I've got a neutral(ish) point of view. There are four s in the article, and a number of lists, but hopefully we'll address those as we go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tool reports

• No disambig problems

• The dead links script here returns two dead links here and here.

Lead

• Lead looks a bit short.

• The referencing in the opening picture cites where ether gets its name, but not ethanol. Our own article claims a different reason for the etymology.

• "An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ... often small quantities of other consumable alcohols." probably wants citing, but not necessarily here. Ideally, the main body of the article should say what other alcohols could be expected.

• The Center for Alcohol Policies source (whose link in the lead goes to a holding page but I assume is this) only reports about 50 countries, while the lead claims "over 100".

• Probably worth mentioning here that some countries ban alcoholic drinks totally.

• Maybe worth mentioning a brief summary of history of control of alcoholic drinks eg: prohibition (and any other similar events in other countries). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Main

• The article has several sections that are unsourced eg: Rectified spirit, Neutral grain spirit, Fermented beverages

• Beverages by fermentation ingredients has an ongoing merge discussion. That may mean substantial changes result from it

• A small edit war appears to have broken out (albeit on minor details) between David Hedlund (talk · contribs) and Sandcherry (talk · contribs) - diff diff diff diff

diff. Nothing serious but probably something that wants to be sorted out on the talk page.

I think those three above points are showstoppers, I'm afraid, so I think we'll have to fail the review at this point, and come back it to it when it's had a bit more restructuring. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed movement of the list "Beverages by type" into a separate article.

This list should not be a separate article but instead should simply be moved to the bottom of the article (where, as I recall, it originally was). This is ancillary material that belongs in the article but should not be located at the top of it. I will move it if there are no objections. Wahrmund (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In view of the fact that no objections have been made, I have moved this ancillary content to the end of the article. Wahrmund (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Title Edition request. December 20 2013

I think we should add " (Drug) " in the tittle of the article, we are a objective source of knowledge.

It is important to classify the Alcoholic beverage as a drug Yes, alcohol is mostly known as a common beverage, an non as a drug. but in the modern world, we have to take down that ignorance and stop promoting alcohol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksax (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Alcoholic beverage#Psychoactive drug. Wahrmund (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Alcoholic beverage#Psychoactive drug are now Alcoholic beverage#Drug, I moved its subections to alcohol (drug). --David Hedlund (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Beer is the third most popular drink in the world?

The entry states: "Beer is the third most popular drink in the world, after water and tea."

What does 'popular' mean here?

I find this statement misleading and vague at best.

Understand that it has been noted elsewhere that: "After water, tea and coffee are the most frequently consumed beverages in the world." http://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/coffee-tea-myth/

• Water is not a beverage. I changed the quote while keeping the same reference, and moved the quote into the Beer section, where it fits better. Wahrmund (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference for this statement is poor, at best. It points to a directory of several articles. I could not find this statement there. The reference should at least point to the page where this statement is. Regardless, the statement is vague.

I conclude that the statement in question here be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.189.39 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move the list of typical levels from Alcohol by volume to Alcoholic beverage.

Oppose: This list is well placed where it is, and does not belong in the general article Alcoholic beverage, which is already very long. Wahrmund (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alcoholic beverage

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alcoholic beverage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "huffpost":

• From Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons: Jauregui, Andres (April 9, 2013). "Rehtaeh Parsons, Canadian Girl, Dies After Suicide Attempt; Parents Allege She Was Raped By 4 Boys". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
• From Prohibition of drugs: Grim, Ryan (November 24, 2010). "K2 Crackdown: DEA Using Emergency Powers To Ban Fake Pot". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 25, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

Shouldn't the fact that alcohol is a Group-1 carcinogen be somewhere on this page? A link to its health effects will be clicked by very few and (perhaps shockingly) it isn't common knowledge that Alcohol is listed alongside mixed substances such as shale oil, tobacco smoke, mineral oils, coal-tars..? 103.21.173.130 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest not. I'm not familiar with exactly what fact you're referring to, and you didn't cite a reliable source, but in any case my understanding is that the general scientific consensus is that the consumption of moderate quantities of alcoholic beverages (by people who are not pregnant and have no other particular interacting complications) is not significantly unhealthful and has sometimes even been suggested to be somewhat beneficial. And among the negative health effects of alcohol consumption that do certainly exist, it is not clear that cancer is the primary concern (e.g., relative to liver disease or the consequences of mental impairment). We shouldn't add scary-sounding factoids to the article without providing WP:DUE balance and without providing an adequate and neutral summary of the overall scientific consensus. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit request] change picture caption

the first picture on the page has an outdated caption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.92.170 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Section on Health Effects Drastically Needs Improvement

There is a section with the "Health Effects", but if you read the body of the section, it does not say anything about health effects. It just talks about how fast ethanol can be absorbed. There is no mention of liver disease or cancer. As the article is now written, it sounds like a advertisement written by an alcoholic beverage manufacturer rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I copied the first few sentences from the "Alcohol and cancer" Wikipedia article to this section to fix it. This edit was only intended as a starting point to improve this section. This section still desperately needs to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.196 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Health risks

Can we mention the health risks as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move with consensus. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Alcoholic beverage → Alcoholic drink – The main article is at drink. Per WP:CONSISTENCY with that title, and also because 'drink' is more WP:CONCISE, I see no reason why the present title should be used. There is no need for latinate obfuscation here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - To maintain consistency. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It looks like "alcoholic beverage" has tended to be somewhat more common in books and papers (for example, see this n-gram comparison), but with something this common, patterns in less formal use also deserve serious consideration. I'm not sure how to measure those, but I do feel that "alcoholic drink" wins on that score. In addition, as RGloucester points out, "drink" scores higher on the secondary considerations of concision and consistency.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is also a WP:COMMONALITY argument. If you take a look at the Ngrams for British English only, you'll see that 'alcoholic drink' beats 'alcoholic beverage' by a substantial margin. As 'alcholic drink' is common in all varieties of English, it should have a leg up on the more dialect-specific 'beverage', which is a chiefly American use in this context. In any case, I also agree with you that part of the problem here is the innate latinisation of academic language, and that common usage at large should be considered more important that common usage in academic language in such a context as this. Unlike in such academic papers, Wikipedia does not benefit from word beautification. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support because I love RGloucester's comment: Unlike in such academic papers, Wikipedia does not benefit from word beautification. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Compilation of ethanol analog substances including academic references

"Anxiolytics and Ethanol Alternatives" is an interesting, published/sourced (reliable ultimate sources within this link given), chemistry extrapolation of "alternate" possible 'drinking' alcohols besides ethyl alcohol/ethanol. Much as 2-methylbutan-2-ol (2M2B) is a derivative of ethyl-alcohol and has been used as "psychoactive" - 'recreation' as sorts. Nagelfar (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, could be useful. Sizeofint (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Scribd should be avoided. Too often the content is a copyright violation, so Wikipedia can't link to it, and there is no way to determine authenticity.

I'm disturbed that this particular source doesn't disclose an actual author identity, doesn't cite sources of its own, and includes an obvious copyvio of a table from some other unnamed source. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Rice Wine

All of the Asian Rice Wines are missing from this page. I request that someone familiar with Rice Wines and other Asian alcoholic beverages like fermented sugar cane wine add them. The way the page is currently structured only alcoholic beverages from the Middle East and European areas of the world are included, which leaves out the very ancient drinks that have been fermented in Asia for millennia.

Tanada (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Tanada

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alcoholic drink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520105103/http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Drink" versus "beverage" again

Looking at the RM discussion of a year ago, I believe it failed to take into account a few things that seem important:

• The Ngram studies did not consider the term "alcoholic beverages" (in the plural form), which is by far the most common variation of the "alcoholic beverage/drink(s)" phrases. See this.
• There was a assertion of a WP:COMMONALITY argument, with the view that British English tends not to use "beverage". This argument is also not sustained by the Ngram statistics of the British English corpus if the plural is considered, as shown here. Even when considering only British English, the term "alcoholic beverages" is by far the most common.
• There is another difference in usage between "drink" and "beverage". In the context of alcoholic liquids, my impression is that a drink is typically a single-serving portion in a glass, whereas the liquid itself is a beverage. According to this contextual difference, wine, beer, and whisky are beverages, whereas a glass of wine, a mug of beer, a shot of whisky, and a mixed drink (such as a Margarita or a Manhattan) are drinks. I believe the scope of the article covers both uses – beverages as well as drinks. The Wiktionary definitions of the two terms reflect this distinction: the definition of beverage focuses on the liquid itself, whereas the definition of drink is a single serving ("I’d like another drink please", and "Can I buy you a drink?"). The reason people may commonly say "I think I need a drink" and never say "I think I need a beverage" is (at least partly) because of that difference in contextual meaning.

I wonder whether the outcome of that RM discussion would have been different if these three issues had been taken into account. (Ping @RGloucester, Meatsgains, Neil P. Quinn, and JFG.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I was originally in favour of beverage(s) for alcoholic drinks, but various move requests ([9], [10], etc) have gone in favour of drink(s) over the years as beverage(s) is a marketing term (which is why it tends to figure high in Google searches). The two words are interchangeable (at one point water was not called a beverage because it wasn't marketable, but these days it is, so water is also now a beverage as well as a drink). I personally don't think it matters hugely which one we use, though if we use one, then it's best that we are consistent with it, and drink is more straightforward, understandable, and neutral, and moves away from the marketing aspects of the term beverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't dispute that in some contexts "beverage" may be used promotionally and as puffery (e.g., as with "utilizing" instead of "using"), but my understanding is that Google Ngram is a search of books, and is generally considered a higher quality source of statistics than simple web searches. I don't think the entire body of "beverage" usage in published books can be blamed on promotional usage. Perhaps there is some WP:ENGVAR issue here as well, but again this is not borne out by the Ngram analysis. There is also a real difference in meaning. "Alcoholic drink" seems fine, but "distilled drink" seems very odd to me. "Can I offer you a beverage?" seems clearly pretentious. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(Tell me what makes it spam and we can leave it out. Until then, you remove it, I add it back.)

First off, no, you come here first, before you restore it. BRD and all that. Next, it's a link to a trade association, not, say, OED or AH. Granted this term is gaining some traction, but its still a neologism, which Wiki isn't too fond of, and a euphemism, ditto. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Responsible vs. Irresponsible Drinking

Responsible drinking is the kind of drinking which occurs in restaurants, etc. Examples include having a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at a ballgame. Irresponsible drinking, on the other hand, typically happens in frat houses. Examples of irresponsible drinking include drinking games, the use of beer bongs, and doing 21 shots on one's 21st birthday. See the distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.200.29.196 (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Do people always behave responsibly in restaurants??? --Edelseider (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you see people at Olive Garden using beer bongs? No. Do you see people in fine dining establishments rapidly taking shots? No. Therefore, people always behave responsibly. Oh, and bars near college campuses do not count as restaurants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B106:7392:C0A1:B8B2:9B3B:DCA5 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to know that there are different kinds and classes of restaurants. And that any patron in any restaurant can be an alcoholic. I have been to restaurants (fine ones and not so fine ones) and seen people of all ages and walks of life have too many glasses of wine or beer. A restaurant is not a nunnery! Am I feeding a troll? --Edelseider (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are feeding a troll LOL— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B106:7392:C0A1:B8B2:9B3B:DCA5 (talk • contribs)

Nahh, it's fairly obvious that this might be a fool's errand at some industry association or lobbyist; it just takes some newbies longer than others to figure out that there ain't no blue steam. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The steam may be blue, but the link is red. Are Anmccaff and 2600:1002:B106:7392:C0A1:B8B2:9B3B:DCA5 one and the same person? --Edelseider (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can strike that, or you can open it at SPI, or I can open open it at ANI. Anmccaff (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agalv009.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Logos on Images

There are two pictures including the first one that show off the logos/brands of aclohol. I am new to Wikipedia, but I believe you are not supposed to do that, but I could be wrong. Kamren Johnson (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Life is "opaque" ?

In your article you let the expression "alcohol is a depressant" hesitating-less follow by the expression "in low dose it causes euphoria". This is "virgin" contradiction. I must conclude that you never did solve this.

Kind regards.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. read up on what the definition of "depressant" is. (I will grant that the naming of the drug class antidepressants as such was a poor choice, for this reason. they ought to have called them antimelancholiants instead). Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)