Jump to content

Talk:Whisky/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Effects of Whisky

Whisky is not an inert substance. Whisky has both short-term and long-term effects on those who imbibe it. Editors are deleting or reverting any mention, no matter how brief, to this fact. This article's accuracy is under dispute. Engaged editors are invited to discuss this here on the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Whisky is no different from any other alcoholic beverage. But you know this. You already have previously been rebutted on this idea. Please stop. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Whisky contains ethanol. Ethanol has effects on people who drink whisky. But you know this. You have previously reverted/deleted this essential information from the whisky article. Please stop. Sbelknap (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not essential information in this article, because there is nothing distinctive about whiskey when it comes to health effects compared to any other distilled spirit. It belongs in the general article on the beverages. It doesn't belong here. Or in the articles on vodka, gin, tequila or any other specific type. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes editors disagree as to what belongs or doesn't belong in an article. That appears to be the case here. Many of the other wikipedia articles about alcoholic beverages include information on their effects. Please understand that wikipedia has readers who vary considerably in their knowledge about the world. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers. We have a hyperlink mechanism to provide a way for readers to find more detailed information about something in any given article. That's the way wikipedia works. Sbelknap (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are you waging this campaign solely on Whiskey? The Banner talk 16:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no campaign. Instead, the whisky article is deficient in lacking certain information and I am correcting that. The current article does not mention that whiskey is a beverage with both short-term and long-term effects. This can be accomplished with a brief section that hyperlinks to the appropriate wikipedia articles on short-term and long-term effects and mentions relevant facts relative to other alcoholic beverages, such as the fact that whisky has a higher ethanol content than wine or beer and that whisky contains congeners that may have harms aside from ethanol.Sbelknap (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
So you are just focusing on one alcoholic drink and ignore all others on this point? That is not the way Wikipedia works. Reverting time and time again is editwarring. And pushing the same info in the article, only to see it removed straight away, is POV-pushing. The Banner talk 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute about whether or not this article is unbalanced because it lacks info on the effects of whisky. Articles on other alcoholic beverages do provide this information, including some of the ones mentioned here. The information I have added was accurate and relevant to readers. One strength of wikipedia is that it provides hyperlinks to related information. Why is that mechanism opposed by some engaged editors here? Sbelknap (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Because, again, there is nothing distinctive about health effects of whiskey compared to any other distilled spirit that requires a specific section that is redundant to the more general article on distilled spirits. Plus, frankly, your insistence on adding such a redundant section to every single article on every type of alcoholic beverage instead of letting those very hyperlinks you mention suffice shows plainly that you're making WP:POINTY edits to push a POV. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The whisky article does not include even the briefest mention nor any hyperlinks to the wikipedia articles about the short-term or long-term effects of drinking ethanol. That is the point.Sbelknap (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Would a link in the "see also" section to Alcohol and health be sufficient to you and end this crusade that you are on? --Jayron32 18:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Crusade? Perhaps we could focus on content. I proposed this section:

Health effects As whisky contains alcohol, its consumption carries the health effects of alcohol consumption.

See also: Short-term effects of alcohol consumption and Long-term effects of alcohol consumption Sbelknap (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Already in 2018 you got told it was not a good idea (Talk:Whisky/Archive 1#Health Effects) because your claims were too vague and not properly sourced. And just as that time, I could accept a section with reliable sources that specifically mention the health effects of whiskey. So not the health effect of alcohol, not some random other subject, the health effects of whiskey. The Banner talk 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct: we have a situation where editors disagree about something. We are now discussing how to resolve this disagreement. I am proposing an "Effects of whiskey" section that would mention that whisky has a higher concentration of ethanol than other alcoholic beverages, and that would then provide hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles that would provide additional information about the effects of ethanol. Is this acceptable to engaged editors? Sbelknap (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
But it doesn't have a higher concentration than any other distilled spirit. And, considering that distilled spirits are not drunk at the same volume as say wine or beer, in terms of absolute alcohol consumed, it's no different. Again, considering all of your edits to alcohol related articles have been efforts to highlight the possible negative health effects, it does seem like you're trying to use Wikipedia to push a point. oknazevad (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
And no, what I am asking for is sources about the health effects of whiskey, no the health effects of ethanol. The Banner talk 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Please review WP:Purpose and WP:Own and reflect. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, our mutual goal is "…is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style"." That is what it means to be a wikipedia editor. In this case, my opinion is that a separate section on Effects of Whiskey, with hyperlinks to other articles about effects of ethanol, is necessary to meet this goal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Please, I only want info about the health effects of whiskey, not something else. It that so hard to understand? The Banner talk 23:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a POV that the article ought to include discussion only about health effects of whisky that are unique to whisky. There is an alternate POV that the article ought to briefly mention that whisky has both short term and long term effects related to its ethanol content, with hyperlinks to other articles that will provide more information. Some of these are health effects. Some of these are not specifically health effects. There is thus a disagreement among editors about the contents of the article. No editor or editors *own* the whisky article. WP:OWN. What we are now attempting to do is to discuss the disagreement and find an edit that improves the article.Sbelknap (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Nor do you own the article. What I see in the "dispute" is one editors desperately trying to get the health effects of ethanol in the article (but not from whiskey) end at least three people who disagree with that. So the consensus is not to add it. The Banner talk 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
And the consensus was against in in 2018, the consensus in 2021 is still against the addition of the ethanol effects. The Banner talk 08:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
One reason that people drink whisky is for the intoxicant effects. Linking to an article about that informs the reader. Some people who read this article are not like you and will not know much or possibly anything about whisky.Sbelknap (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
As stated before: if you have sources that show specifically health effects of drinking whiskey, you are welcome to add it. But do not add the effects of alcohol/ethanol that can be found in each and every alcoholic beverage. That is too wide a net. The Banner talk 16:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Would you agree to have a short section with one sentence and hyperlinks to the effects of ethanol?Sbelknap (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I am specifically asking to the health effects of whiskey, not of alcohol/ethanol. The Banner talk 19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, looks like we need an RFC here. Sbelknap (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You sound really desperate to get your POV in. Ever heard of consensus?????? The Banner talk 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's focus on content, please. There is a disagreement as to the content of the article. This discussion is all about resolving this disagreement and achieving consensus. RfC is one mechanism that wikipedia provides for achieving consensus. Do you have some simpler alternative proposal for achieving consensus? Sbelknap (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is not unanimity. If everyone else disagrees, then consensus already exists. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't. Stop badgering the discussion. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with The Banner and Oknazevad. There is nothing special about whiskey when it comes to health effects compared to other alcohols, so I don't believe it is necessary to include such information here. -- Calidum 02:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is consulted by readers who may not know the first thing about whisky. Would you agree that such a reader would benefit from a hyperlink to articles about the effects of ethanol?Sbelknap (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The first link in the first sentence of the article leads to another one that will elucidate the naïve reader about the general properties of distilled spirits. It includes sections that directly address the health effects of ethanol consumption. I agree with the editors who have already noted that the present article should focus on its nominal topic and not be encumbered with what, in fact, would be a redundant link. Futhark|Talk 06:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You are describing a schema where the target information is 2 links away. The proposal under discussion describes a schema where the target information is 1 link away. 1 < 2. Sbelknap (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A section titled 'Effects of whisky' would be inappropriately named - the effects are those of any distilled alcoholic beverage, so such a section would need to be called 'Effects of distilled alcoholic beverages'. I see that our article about such drinks already has such a section, which is the proper place for it, and that we link to that article already in the first sentence of this article. I don't think there's a problem here that needs fixing. GirthSummit (blether) 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Here, we are discussing the whisky article and not some other article. The whisky article nowhere mentions the effects of whisky nor links to articles about the effects of distilled alcoholic beverages more generally. I propose that we have a brief section in the whisky article that has a single sentence stating that whisky has a relatively high content of ethanol (similar to other distilled alcoholic beverages) and that links to relevant wikipedia articles about the effects of ethanol. If you have questions about where/when to hyperlink, please review the guidance at: WP:MOSLINK. Sbelknap (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
And for at least the fifth time, the effects of whiskey are no different than any other distilled spirit. And also a crystal clear consensus that no one in this discussion agrees with such an addition. Take the hint and drop it. Continuing to say the same thing over and over when everybody has sai they don't agree with the proposal is disruptive and pointy. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you really not understand that we are talking about the health effects of whiskey and not about the health effects of ethanol? The Banner talk 20:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not a matter of understanding but instead one of disagreeing. My understanding is that some editors have the opinion that mention/discussion of the effects of whisky be limited specifically to those health effects of whisky that are not also effects of other alcoholic beverages. I have a different opinion. It is distinctly odd that the article does not mention that whisky is intoxicating, that whisky has an ethanol content similar to other distilled spirits but higher than beer, wine, or mead, and that consumption of whisky has other short term and long term effects that are common to other alcoholic beverages. Such comparisons and contrasts are common in wikipedia articles. A hyperlink could then provide a way for the reader to explore those other effects further. Not all readers of the whisky article will be familiar with whisky. Some may know nothing whatsoever about whisky. We are here to build a wikipedia that serves our users.sbelknap (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
As already noted — twice — that hyperlink already exists in the very first sentence of the article. The page it leads to provides a reasonable review of the concerns attaching to ethanol consumption, with an additional link to an article that goes into that topic in even greater detail. I expect that you will counter by (re)stating that it is necessary for the present article to include a single-click point of access to the latter information. If so, the argument becomes about the length of the click path, which is of no substantive relevance to the article in which that path commences. Futhark|Talk 09:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It is false to assert that the whisky article already includes links to Short-term effects of alcohol consumption or Long-term effects of alcohol or Alcohol and health or Alcohol intoxication. Such direct links would be of interest to some readers. In my opinion, it is absurd to have an article about whisky that does not mention the effects of whisky. Some readers are not as expert on whisky and its effects as the engaged editors. Please give a reason for omitting a brief description of the effects of whisky with appropriate hyperlinks in the whisky article.sbelknap (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
So one person, sbelknap, has an opinion and although all others rejects his opinion, he keeps bashing for it. Nice way to ignore the consensus. In fact, sbelknap, you are getting disruptive. The Banner talk 10:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
All others? Please. There is a disagreement among a fairly small number of engaged editors. The very purpose of this talk page is to achieve consensus. There is no bashing or edit warring or anything else inappropriate here. My focus has been on the content. I urge other engaged editors to also focus on content. If you have suggestions regarding how we ought to proceed regarding a RfC or other means of resolving the disagreement, please advise.sbelknap (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If you read this page properly, you can see that there is consensus NOT to add your POV. The Banner talk 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
From WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."sbelknap (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The word "legitimate" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting in that sentence, and has not been established in this case... --Jayron32 16:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I assume you are referring to potential conflict of interest. Would presently engaged editors please disclose any conflict of interest they have on this topic? I'll go first: I have no conflict of interest regarding this whisky article. sbelknap (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have been watching this exchange of views for some days. I would have said debate, but debate assumes two evenly matched views. This has one overwhelming view and one dissenter. For the record, I am with the great majority here that the addition of specific text about the impact of ethanol is not appropriate. However I am reactively new here but I too must declare an interest - I drink whisky (without an "e") occasionally.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Consumption of whisky doesn't seem like a disqualifying conflict of interest. Perhaps when some presently-engaged editors disqualify themselves because of genuine COI, the discourse will appear somewhat more balanced. I thank Jayron32 for raising the COI issue. sbelknap (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I said nothing about COI. Let me be less obscure: Your concerns, and by your I mean Sbelknap, are not legitimate. We know this because no one else shares them. Consensus is that your concerns are not a problem, therefore we don't have to deal with them. --Jayron32 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no COI. I'm just someone who enjoys an occasional dram. Frankly, I think even the demand is a real stretch and an assumption of bad faith. oknazevad (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There may be something to what you say. We are obligated to assume good faith in the absence of evidence otherwise. However, Jayron32 challenged the legitimacy of other editors, implying that some of us have a COI, and their point also seems a fair one. sbelknap (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Ehm, no. The way I read it Jayron32 is challenging your good faith and CoI. The Banner talk 08:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Several editors (including me) have reported that they have no COI. Other editors have not, which is certainly their right.sbelknap (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Towards a RFC

As it is clear that "someone" will not give up, I think we should give him a RfC he wants. But I suggest a RfC that will hold water for all alcoholic beverages. Something along the line "When an article about alcoholic beverages already contains a link to Liquor, any further links to health effects of alcohol/ethanol etc. are superfluous". The Banner talk 18:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is my proposed section for consideration by RfC:

Effects of Whisky

Effects of whisky consumption are mostly due to its alcohol content. See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health.

sbelknap (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Mostly? For many people, the primary intended effect of whisky consumption is the attendant enjoyment, often targeted toward the further end of acquiring knowledge and connoisseurship. I do not believe that this article should subordinate such effects to the negative consequences of unmeasured ethanol consumption. However that might be dealt with, I am strenuously opposed to an RfC as an intermediate instrument. There has only been one dissenting voice in an otherwise unanimous statement of consensus here. This is not at all the situation for which the RfC mechanism is intended. Disclaimer: I have no interest whatsoever in any facet of the production or marketing of whisky, or any activity related to it, other than as a consumer. Futhark|Talk 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the RfC is not my ideal of solving the case. But alas, Sbelknap needs to read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And indeed drop that stick. But if he refuses, we have a method of banging on the door too. The Banner talk 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC) I like my Jameson pure for the taste. But I drink so little, that receiving a bottle at Christmas already makes my supply grow...
There is already a clear consensus on the substantive issue here with no residual need for silencing the dissenting voice. Calling for an RfC simply to have that effect is, again, counter to the purpose of that procedure — and would divert time that the participants in its discussion could otherwise be devoting to productive editing. Futhark|Talk 10:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need an RFC to determine consensus when consensus is clear. One person being unable to accept that is disruption, not a call for an RFC. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, All, for your comments. I notice that, so far, there are no substantive reasons as to *why* the effects of whisky ought not to be mentioned in the whisky article. There are many "because I say so" responses, but no rational argument has been provided. It seems to me that we need a broader discussion that would be more substantive, and that an RfC would be appropriate for that. I've incorporated the feedback above into a revised sentence to serve as the subject of this rfc. sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Effects of Whisky

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against including the proposed sentence in the article. Editors note that the effects are not specific to whisky, but instead are due to the alcohol content. This close does not prejudice addition of appropriately sourced information on the health effects of whisky in particular. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


Should the whisky article provide direct links to articles about the effects of ethanol on those who consume whisky? Here is a proposed sentence with hyperlinks: Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content. See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health.

sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Banner, I think you are exaggerating. Attic Salt (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Objection noted. The Banner talk 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
That isn't the statement you voted on, friend. This is the statement you voted on: "Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content."sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The way you have presented it, I assume that people will be voting on this: Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content. See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health. The Banner talk 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course, that is what the text says. Attic Salt (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This seems preachy, and the "Some effects" phrase implies that there might be something special about whisky that makes its "effects" significantly different from drinking vodka, gin, rum, tequila, brandy, akvavit, soju, awamori, baijiu, or shōchū (or even beer, wine, etc., depending on quantity). It is also unclear what "effects" really means in this context. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
While I might be sympathetic to some of your concerns, what is meant by "effects" is at least partly listed in the proposed text: "See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health". Are you suggesting that the list of effects should be more explicitly listed in addition the "intoxication" that is already listed? Just curious, Attic Salt (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
But if we say that "Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content", that implies that there are other effects of whisky that are not due to alcohol. Adding links to articles about the effects of alcohol do not help explain this, because I am curious about what the other effects are – the ones that are not due to alcohol. Since "effects" seems rather vague and broad, I'm left with a mystery. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Point of Information: I note that the articles on beer and wine already have lengthy sections devoted to their health effects. I ask: Are editors who are opposed to this RFC also in favor of removing the "health effects" sections from the articles on beer and wine? Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The Banner, In response to your question, I looked at the edit summaries. I'm not terribly familiar with the apps that allow one to search for edits by particular editors, but my observation is that Sbelknap has contributed to editing the health effects sections of both beer and wine, but that sections on health effects were already present in both articles prior to Sbelknap making his/her edits. Just trying to be clear. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Those additions were placed in the same period that he tried to squeeze it in here the first time (August 2018). He also placed it at Cider, but that was removed straight away as being POV. The Banner talk 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC).
The Banner, I'm not sure if I'm getting through. The articles on beer and wine have lengthy health-effects sections. Those sections were in place before Sbelknap started editing those articles: [1], [2]. Since you do not support this RFC, do you also think the health-effects sections in the beer and wine articles, to which multiple editors have apparently contributed, should be removed? Attic Salt (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you did come though. But I like to point out that this is the second campaign of this editor to get his POV in. And as it is regarded POV by many other users, it should be removed everywhere. The Banner talk 12:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Basically, my answer is yes; most of that "health effects" stuff in the beer and wine articles should be removed. There absolutely should not be any lengthy discussion of the effects of alcohol consumption repeated in every article on Wikipedia about an alcoholic beverage. It might be OK to talk about red wine headache and resveratrol in the wine article and to talk about beer belly in the beer article, but there is no need to repetitively expound on the same effects of alcohol in hundreds (or thousands) of articles. How far do you take that? Why stop at wine? How about putting that into the Red wine article too? And the Bordeaux wine article? And the Fat Bastard (wine) article and the Red Bicyclette article and the Johnnie Walker article and the Jack Daniel's article? And vodka, gin, rum, tequila, brandy, akvavit, soju, awamori, baijiu, and shōchū? No. We should not have such sections. If you drink a lot of any of those drinks, you might feel good for a while but you might do stupid and embarrassing things and won't be able to drive properly and you might get a hangover and it won't be good for your liver, but we shouldn't say all that in hundreds (or thousands) of articles. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
BarrelProof, thank you for your very clear reply. I probably agree with you, but I would say that it would be acceptable to have links to Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health (along with other things) in the "see also" section at the end of the article. Attic Salt (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the info on each beverages' page about effects that are due to ethanol could all be provided by hyperlinking to more detailed articles on the effects of ethanol. There could be beverage-specific information on the individual beverage's pages. (i.e., new information indicates that wine has no net health benefit at any dose, when formerly it was believed to have some health benefit). My goal here is to be consistent across beverages. As Attic Salt points out, I did not originate the info on the beer and wine effects, but I did update this info and provide citations. I remind editors interested in a specific beverage that some readers know almost nothing about some beverages. The goal here is to make wikipedia useful to readers, and there ought to be a straight shot from any given beverage article to harmful effects. But I repeat myself.sbelknap (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion is duly noted. The overwhelming consensus is that there ought not to be a "straight shot from any given beverage article to harmful effects." In all honesty, I think it would only irritate most readers more than anything else - for reasons already noted, it would come across as preachy and as pushing a teetotaler agenda, and the encyclopaedia would be taken less seriously. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is inconsistency across beverages. The editors of the wine and beer articles included health effects sections. The editors of the whisky article did not. Perhaps there is too much of this on the wine and beer articles and not enough on the whisky article. It does seem distinctly odd that the whisky article doesn't mention that whisky has effects, but instead links to a more general article that in turn links to articles about effects. sbelknap (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I do find it a little odd that Beer#Health effects is telling me No professional medical association recommends that people who are nondrinkers should start drinking wine. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed. sbelknap (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely this article should have links to the relevant articles detailing the effects of ingesting ethanol. All articles on alcoholic drinks should feature these links, not least whisky, as the article states this particular product comprises an average 40% ethyl alcohol. It would be remiss of an encyclopedia not to clearly feature the effects of any product containing a toxic (potentially fatal), psychologically and physically additive psychoactive substance such as ethanol. *sips scotch* 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:A111:F246:3AB6:3EDD (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page title spelling - "whiskey" and not "whisky"

The title should be changed from "whisky" to "whiskey" to reflect the spelling used in two of the three major whiskey-producing countries that speak English, the US and Ireland. BartonNietzsche (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

See Whisky#Names_and_spellings why this is not a good idea. The Banner talk 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Origins

Jābir ibn Ḥayyān discusses distillation of wine in the 9th Century, in a process recognisably similar to the fortification of wines in Muslim Spain soon afterwards, leading to brandies. The Umayyad collection of Greek texts passed into Latin through the translators of Toledo and Gerona, and thence into the Celtic world through the Basque communities. Barley is a beer staple, and the distillation of that is as coherent as the distillation of wine. Your suggestion that it was a Crusader import is perhaps questionable, as it's full gaelic name is indistinguishable from early brandy, eau-de-vie, uisghe beatha. Welsh records go back to 356CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.80.209 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whisky/Archive_2&oldid=1207297410"