Jump to content

Talk:Alcohol (drug)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology of the word Alcohol

[edit]

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

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

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

Merger discussion - Alcohol-related crimes

[edit]

I already merged Alcohol-related crime into Alcohol (drug), but @Piotrus objected and reverted the blank-and-redirect part. So here's a formal topic to decide whether to actually merge. I think the pages have substantial overlap and the information from Alcohol-related crime works well in the discussion of social harm in Alcohol (drug) (permalink). Many of the crimes were listed on both pages under similar headings. And once the information is in Alcohol (drug), it's only logical to avoid being WP:REDUNDANT and turn Alcohol-related crime into a redirect. I also removed the term alcohol-related crimes as it didn't seem to add much beyond its dictionary definition - the second source [1] in the lead mentions that the term is not precisely defined and varies across publications. The other argument for merging is article size. Before the merge Alcohol (drug) was 34kb / 5144 words and the crime article was basically a stub, 7kb or 1166 words. After the merge Alcohol (drug) is 41kb or 6187 words, still nowhere near any thresholds in WP:ARTICLESIZE. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal: Split out pharmacology

[edit]

I have been working on expanding a discussion of the ADME of ethanol. Currently this article is at 7.5k words, with the expansion it would be past the 8k mark mentioned in WP:SIZERULE. The pharmacology overlaps with several other articles, such as Blood alcohol concentration#Metabolism, Alcohol_intoxication#Pathophysiology, Ethanol metabolism, Auto-brewery_syndrome#Metabolic_action. So I was thinking I would split out the whole section to a new Pharmacology of ethanol article. It doesn't seem too controversial as there are articles named like Pharmacology of progesterone, Pharmacodynamics of estradiol, etc. but maybe someone has an idea on what the exact scope of the new article should be (pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, or pharmacokinetics). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has grown since, with xtools reporting 8,601 words — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Your comment doesn't really sound like enthusiastic support, but on the other hand 94.255.152.53's edits show no signs of stopping, so it is probably worthwhile. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathnerd314159: I support your idea of splitting out the pharmacology section into a new article titled Pharmacology of ethanol. As you mentioned, there are similar articles dedicated to the pharmacology of specific substances, including Pharmacology of bicalutamide, Pharmacology of antidepressants, Pharmacology of progesterone, and Pharmacology of cyproterone acetate – this would provide consistency with Wikipedia's organization. This approach would also help keep the original article on a manageable length and avoid violating the size guidelines. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I had a draft which was getting close to finished and now it is in mainspace. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fantastic, Mathnerd314159! It's always exciting to see an article come to fruition. I look forward to checking out the new article on the pharmacology of ethanol. It will be a valuable resource. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathnerd314159: Also, the current article, Alcohols (medicine), covers a broader range of alcohols used in medicine, including isopropyl alcohol which is not meant for ingestion. Separating the information on ethanol would create a clearer distinction between its medicinal uses and those of other alcohols. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Abused" in lede

[edit]

Since there's been some back and forth on whether to characterize alcohol as one of the most commonly used and abused substances in the lede, I figured I'd open a talk page discussion.

I feel it is WP:DUE to include "abused" in the lede. The objection that not all drinkers abuse alcohol is irrelevant, just as articles on cults and other fringe groups don't have to specify that not all people are members. The two statements are distinct; alcohol is one of the most commonly used substances, and alcohol is one of the most commonly abused substances. Both these are highly relevant. We could workshop some rephrasing if others would like, but the mention, supported by sources, should stay in the lede. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. I felt it was an undue mention. Your analogy with fringe groups doesn't make sense to me. "All people" (with respect to fringe groups) is not analogous to "drinkers" (with respect to alcohol consumption); drinkers actively engage with the given thing (drinking alcohol) whereas a generic person would not engage with a fringe group. That the overwhelming majority of people who engage with alcohol by drinking do not abusively consume it is pretty significant. I also think that starting the lead off in a moralizing almost preachy tone by mentioning the abuse issue gives an unencyclopedic and activist vibe. Also note that similar articles about drugs e.g., Cocaine, Heroin, Meth do not do this in the first sentence. JDiala (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll allow that the metaphor isn't the best one, so fair point. Though I also point out you write, a generic person would not engage with a fringe group, so it seems similarly assumed that a generic drinker would not abuse alcohol.
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but what I'm hearing is that the construction of the lede implies that use and abuse are very closely associated. (Beyond abusers having to be users, that is.) That is, it could be interpreted as, "Alcohol is the most commonly [used and abused] substance", where a user is implied to be an abuser. I can see that argument. Would a rephrase to, "Alcohol is one of the most commonly used and most frequently abused substances" be an improvement?
The other part I'm hearing from you is about the prominence of its abuse. I feel it's due because of two factors: 1) It being among the three most commonly abused is notable, 2) Unlike the other drugs you mention (which do mention their illegality in the lede), alcohol is legal, so "abuse" is the term which indicates social ills from its use. Illegal drugs are (rightly or wrongly) assumed to have social ills from their use by default.
Finally, I don't really see any moralizing or preachy tone in the lede; it's just describing what is. (Well, except for the fourth paragraph. But we can workshop that later, if desired.) I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts; I think there's definitely room to tweak things so we can all be happy (or all be equally unhappy!) with the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Drunk and Citations

[edit]

Because an IP has twice removed the paragraph on "dry drunk", I figured I'd open a discussion here for it. The passage status-quo reads: Dry drunk is an expression coined by the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous[1] that describes an alcoholic who no longer drinks but otherwise maintains the same behavior patterns of an alcoholic.[2]

The IP has posted on one of their talk pages, The dry-drunk language of AA and the citations are fundamentally religious in nature and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The citations used are from weak sources that have low bars to entry for their websites. Separately, they perpetuate harm by insinuating that quitting alcohol without AA is inappropriate.

The two references are WebMD, a notably secular source, and a published book. Neither of these appear to have any religious connection, and are completely appropriate. WebMD also seems like a decent source to me. I also don't see any way in which the wikitext insinuates that quitting alcohol without AA is inappropriate. I feel we should keep the passage as-written. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "What to Know About Dry Drunk Syndrome".
  2. ^ Brook DW, Spitz HI (23 September 2002). The Group Therapy of Substance Abuse. CRC Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-7890-1782-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcohol_(drug)&oldid=1243867183"