Talk:Alcoholic beverage

Title of the article should be changed from Alcoholic drink to Alcoholic beverage

The title of the article needs to be changed from "Alcoholic drink" to "Alcoholic beverage". The word "drink" when used as a noun typically refers to a specific type of alcohol that is poured into a glass. "Beverage" is a more generic term that applies to bottled alcohol that is stored on shelves or tables.Anthony22 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fully concur. The discussion above reveals that the participants were clearly unaware of the contexts in which both terms are properly used. Also, because of that subtle difference in meaning, the two terms are deployed at different levels of formality (i.e., different registers). This is the English Wikipedia in which we use formal written English, not the Simple English Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Does anyone disagree? ɱ (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do, absent additional information. See what Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge Dictionary list as the definitions of drink. Beverage is the term for generic consumable liquid while drink is generally associated with alcohol. -- Vaulter 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vaulter: You're proving the point - we're calling it an 'alcoholic beverage"', meaning 'alcoholic' is right there in the term. We're not simply arguing between 'drink' and 'beverage'. By your standard, 'alcoholic drink' is a redundant, like 'ATM machine'. ɱ (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

3-to-1 is consensus enough, and there's no argument for the current title. I am going to move the page. ɱ (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is so wrong and possibly a case of American-centrism. Drink and beverage are synonymous, and the above link to Cambirdge Dictionary supports that. Mclay1 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

"Alcohol expectations" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alcohol expectations has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 29 § Alcohol expectations until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Would 0.5% be too specific?

An alcoholic beverage is any drink that contains not less than 0.5% of alcohol.

@NullReason I'm thinking if defining the ABV too accurately can have issues? e.g., Chinese (PRC) laws define it as > 1% instead.

I'm considering "...contains alcohol", and write later somewhere "[definitions/ABV requirements] differ by [countries/jurisdictions], see #Laws". 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 01:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@IrisChronomia I fully support your idea. I'm thinking "...contains alcohol. The exact amount on which a beverage is considered alcoholic differ by..." NullReason (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Your one reads much better than my proposal, thanks.

I merged the "exact amount on which..." part with "with some countries considering <0.5% to be..." and moved them to the end of lead paragraph, after the examples sentence. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 04:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you for your support! NullReason (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Missing information

With Alcohol industry being a circular redirect here, I expect more information that overviews the alcohol industry, i.e. the companies and economics of alcohol production. Instead, there is only a single sentence about this in the lead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

well, there is the POV fork Criticism of the alcohol industry. IDK, we have too many alcohol pages, it is a confusing mess. I did a little bit of hatnote restructuring before, so that page actually does have a place, Alcohol and society#Criticism of the alcohol industry, but just look at Template:Alcohol_and_health, the topics never end.

For now I have retargeted to Alcohol and society, still not totally on-topic but better. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

"known carcinogen" in opening line

While I understand there is a source in the body the notes alcohol has been found to be a carcinogen, is this really such a dominant finding that it needs to be in the opening line? There doesn't seem to be a huge literature, reporting, or regulatory action around this, so why are we stressing it so strongly? --ZimZalaBim^talk 22:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The actual source is World Health Organization . Its not some minor finding, but a well established view in the medical field. It s classified as such by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - "Alcoholic beverages Group 1 There is "evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity" in humans of alcoholic beverages for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney cancer.". For all else its highly carcinogenic. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It is partially an issue with presentation, we have a lot of layers of articles: Alcohol (drug), Alcoholic beverage, Health effects of alcohol, Long-term effects of alcohol, Alcohol and cancer. There is so much material, obviously it will be somewhat hard to reach a consensus on what is important and should be given WP:DUE weight in terms of balancing aspects etc. But in terms of recent news articles, there has been a consistent campaign by the WHO, and also recent campaigns by e.g. NYC gov, hence when the IP added it I think it was a step in the right direction. Looking at Google News coverage of alcoholic beverages, here is what I see: decline in use among young adults , article citing WHO , case against alcohol , GLP-1 treating alcohol abuse , "societies everywhere ramp up efforts to discourage drinking" . Generally all anti-alcohol sentiment.

I am not wedded to having "known carcinogen" in the opening line, but there is this substantial shift in societal tone regarding alcohol that I think requires modification. One option would be to replace Alcohol and society with more of a historical article based on sociological studies, and then summary-style that and reference that in the lead. IDK, "known carcinogen" was the path of least resistance. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ouch, who did that? Put this way, it screams POV-push. Then in the next sentence we have "they-known carcinogens and central nervous system depressants-are divided into three classes: beers, wines, and spirits". Ponor (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The grammar is easy to address. The issue of what constitutes NPOV is not so easy. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverages being carcinogens is not their defining property, i. e. that's not why people drink them. The WHO's strong opinion about alcohol is already in the lead (I know who added it first), and it doesn't need to be pushed in the very first sentence. Compare with, for example, Cigarette. Ponor (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree on the very first sentence. Alcoholic beverages are not mainly discussed in the sense of health, but recreation. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

With Special:Diff/1367758461, I removed the alarmist comment from the first lede sentence concerning cancer and depression. Both are sufficiently discussed and sourced under 'Health effects'. Zefr (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Well if we use the featured article Capri-Sun as a benchmark then the negative health effects do deserve some mention in the third paragraph of the lead. But that is in fact the current state. So I'm happy. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)