Talk:Alkoholersterwerbsalter

RFV discussion: September–October 2021
nothing at Google Books, results at Google Groups look like spam/WP. --Myrelia (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * nothing at juris or Beck Online either. What would be the term? Probably circumscriptions like “gesetzliches Mindestalter für den Alkoholgenuss”. The Wikipedia neologism caught on on the web a bit. Still a ghost word. Be careful with Wikipedia, . Fay Freak (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My bad . I had found the word used several times in various companies' T&Cs about alcohol, but after reading I see that the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia are considerably stronger than this. I agree with the sentiments echoed below, that the German Wikipedia page should also have it's title amended. I see that a discussion about the name has been re-ignited on the Wiki page itself, so I'll leave that for there. NeorxenoSwang (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A simple google search does turn up mentions in magazines. Eg: Fallstaf.ch, Alltagsmagazin.de, Nordisch.info, and of course Alkoholersterwerbsalter. The reason your searches didn't turn up anything seems to be that it's a pseudo-legal term, sounding legal, but not actually used in a legal context. Not sure what do about this one. —caoimhinoc (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These are fake magazines, a kind of online journalism. The first only is printed, but from the archives apparently not that particular Gewinnspiel. Fay Freak (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it shouldn't be a word. Someone should change that wikipedia title though. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so—why should’t they just make up compounds? Because dictionary editors don’t do their jobs and copy it naively? It’s how the language works. Fay Freak (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because of: (keine) Begriffsfindung. --Myrelia (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're getting me wrong. I'm not against new words. Firstly, I meant it probably shouldn't be on wiktionary. Or maybe with a note saying it's basically only used on wikipedia. Secondly, there exist better terms to serve as the title for the wikipedia page. It doesn't make sense to use an ad-hoc term if a perfectly acceptable legal term exists. Some people use wikipedia to find out what something is called and here they're being mislead. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are just assuming a perfectly acceptable legal term exists. But it doesn’t. First reason is that the first proposition of that Wikipedia article is wrong. The legal facts are completely missed. Wikipedia speaks about “das Mindestalter, welches eine Person erreicht haben muss, um alkoholische Getränke käuflich zu erwerben oder zu konsumieren”. There is no such Mindestalter, at least in the FRG. The underage youth who buys booze or consumes it does not infringe the law. What is forbidden is (§ 9 I JuSchG) to hand it out to him or suffer him consuming it (for whom it is forbidden is another question which is controverted). What term exists hence is e.g. Abgabeverbot von Alkohol an Kinder und Jugendliche. Fay Freak (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then why does it say in the first paragraph “In Deutschland liegt das Mindestalter bei 16 Jahren für Bier und (Schaum-)Wein und bei 18 Jahren für Spirituosen.”? All the more reason to change the title. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because those obsequious pedagogues and sociologists who edit Wikipedia do not tend to think in exact categories unless man tips them, only in catchwords (alcohol from 18, 16 if beer or wine, muh, enough for groupthink compliance). The quoted sentence is a breviloquence for what is supposedly regulated. Such vulgar fellows say “” but it is man’s which may be illegal. In the same fashion this encyclopedia writes “Mindestalter für Bier etc.” when it is “Mindestalter für Abgabe und Gestattung des Genusses von Bier etc.” (still not even telling at whom that is directed.) In the actual list they have it more exact, like the statutes themselves need complete sentences. Of course for many other countries they got it wrong or inexact again, as well as outdated (for Syria they give the IS practice, rah). Like it would blow their mind to learn that in some Islamic countries there may be different laws depending on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, because there is interpersonale Rechtsspaltung. Fay Freak (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Vulgar fellows? Do you also have some choice words then for those who routinely refer to undocumented migrants as illegale Einwanderer? – not only, but also Tageschau, Deutsche Welle, the Frankfurter Algemeine, and even . --Lambiam 14:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not taking either stance in this discussion, but illegale Einwanderer is just a Hypallage of illegal Einwandernde. I don't think the same can be said about Alkoholersterwerbsalter. To attack illegale Einwanderer for its use of a hypallage is to completely miss the point and to strawman. --Fytcha (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Voicing an objection to calling human beings “illegals” is not an attack. An obvious consequence of the hypallage is that it is not read as illegal Einwandernde Personen but as Einwanderer, die illegal sind, and thereby appears to sanction uses as seen in “Viele Frauen besorgt — Aufgriffe von Illegalen: Bürger rüsten wieder auf”. Also, would the argument that Alkoholersterwerbsalter is vulgar equally apply to the hypallagic Alkoholmindenstabgabealter instead of Mindestalter für die legale Bereitstellung von alkoholischen Getränken? IMO the vulgarity criticism is pedantic; the issue is if the term is used, not how well it corresponds to legal terminology. --Lambiam 13:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There hasn't been an article for this on Wiktionary so I've created one: . --Fytcha (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in the phrase “illegale Einwanderer” it is more clear that it is the Einwanderung (what makes an Einwanderer an Einwanderer) illegal. Anyway the crux is that thinking follows the hypallage. Not because of Whorfianism but because manaman hasn’t learned, from the beginning, to tell apart the modes of expression and the modes of conceptualizing (the latter aren’t as linear as the former, yes?). As discussion clinges to the form of how people talk then, and meanings and implications beyond superficial stances have not been put emphasis on, it replicates and becomes disinformation, like this Wikipedia article is. A great failure in public education and the courses of public discourse. Fay Freak (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Amen. --Lambiam 08:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How does this discussion of ‘illegale Einwanderer’ pertain to ‘Alkoholersterwerbsalter’? I can't really follow. Or was this just a tangent?
 * Why do you write ‘man’ and ‘manaman’ for ‘one’? A slip or is your autocorrect misbehaving? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave another example to show a pattern that reoccurs and occurs in this Wikipedia article (at this point we were formulating for German Wikipedia of course why that new term and the article especially in its introduction is flawed, and how this kind of misleadings can be spotted and avoided there in the future. That this particular term is not used is already established; that the error lies not in but one term and it is easily repeated was to be cautioned against.)
 * I write that because that’s the most current way of talking on the British Isles. I despise autocorrect and turn it off where I see it, as it is there to align speech with the ordinary although I am decided towards extraordinary expression and it does not even make sense if one works with multiple languages as here. Arguably the writers lag behind. If Wikipedia authors exerted themselves more in the extraordinary they would attain exactitude more often, and they would be more conscious whether they make up new terms and whether not. There is of course a difference, resting on training, between us dictionary editors and “other” people in how we can perceive rarities of usage. Fay Freak (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your penchant for “extraordinary expression” tends to steer your verbiage towards the inscrutible. --Lambiam 16:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think whether or not some wikipedians are lazy/poorly educated is a moot point. The title of the wikipedia article in question is clearly out of bounds in light of what User:Myrelia linked to: ((keine) Begriffsfindung), and consequently our entry should be deleted or maybe kept with a warning note attached. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI + WT:WDL state: 3 durably archived quotes are needed to attest and keep this term. Without quotes this should be deleted in around 1 month (after the discussion has set). --Myrelia (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I can find it in one magazine (out of everything Issuu digitizes), but that's not enough. As for the Wikipedia article title, perhaps the uses in corporate TOSes and online magazines and such are enough to satisfy Wikipedia that the term is used by other people, since Wikipedia accepts more online sources than we do. - -sche (discuss) 10:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks more like the term originated inside Wikipedia, as suggested above. Limiting a Google search to before 2013 (when the article was created) doesn't return any external results. – Jberkel 16:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)