Talk:alcohol poisoning

alcohol poisoning
Maybe different from other types of poisoning but I think it's an SoP, regardless. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the NHS, at least, it is a specific diagnosis. bd2412 T 02:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely not sum of parts. A specific diagnosis, not simply poisoning involving alcohol.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it? What is it then? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wood alcohol doesn't cause this kind of alcohol poisoning, nor does geraniol, which is the alcohol that makes roses smell like roses (both are lethal in sufficient quantity). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think delete actually, alcohol in non-chemistry use usually means drinking alcohol, it's the most common meaning. And it's poisoning due to alcohol. The NHS document is on the same subject, poisoning due to alcohol. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alcoholic beverages aren't normally considered poisonous, but they cause most alcohol poisoning. That's why it's not sum-of-parts.  Like water poisoning or dry drowning, the restricted meaning isn't at all apparent from the component parts.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you back up your claim that "alcoholic beverages aren't normally considered poisonous"? --WikiTiki89 16:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think that the fact that people voluntarily drink large amounts of them would back that claim up by itself. "Poisonous" and "beverage" usually don't go together. bd2412 T 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet these people who voluntarily drink large amounts are usually aware that these large amounts should not be too large or else they'll get poisoned. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people might consider intoxication alone a kind of poisoning (particularly when it arises from things like paint fumes or pollutants), but with alcohol, it has to reach a level of harm higher than that to be considered "poisoning". bd2412 T 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people do consider alcohol intoxication to be a mild form of alcohol poisoning. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Mayo Clinic, which states:

"Alcohol poisoning signs and symptoms include:
 * Confusion
 * Vomiting
 * Seizures
 * Slow breathing (less than eight breaths a minute)
 * Irregular breathing (a gap of more than 10 seconds between breaths)
 * Blue-tinged skin or pale skin
 * Low body temperature (hypothermia)
 * Passing out (unconsciousness) and can't be awakened"
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 00:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it says "there are no people that consider alcohol intoxication to be a mild form of alcohol poisoning". Anyway, I wasn't aware that the Mayo Clinic entered the business of lexicography. --WikiTiki89 16:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Renard Migrant. --WikiTiki89 18:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Renard Migrant. I also added the relevant definition to alcohol. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I attempt to kill someone by adding a quarter cup of rubbing alcohol to his food, it still isn't alcohol poisoning, and even nonchemists recognize rubbing alcohol as alcohol. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not in the beverage sense. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why this isn't SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is SOP. Because it's the beverage sense of alcohol that we're talking about and that sense does not include rubbing alcohol. --WikiTiki89 23:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've just disproved your own point. You can't tell from the words "alcohol poisoning" that it only refers to toxicity resulting from drinking alcoholic beverages.  Even though most of us associate alcohol with beverages, we're also aware that not all alcohol is meant to be drunk, and that some of it is poisonous if drunk.  Since "alcohol poisoning" isn't used to refer to poisoning by just any kind of alcohol, and that restricted meaning can't be derived from the words themselves, it's not sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you're right or wrong, it just seems completely irrelevant. Your keep vote and your following sentence seem completely unrelated. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point all along has been the same.  A term is equal to the sum of its parts when it ordinarily carries no additional or more specific meaning.  When the ordinary meaning of the word (or even a very common sense) is more restricted, or contradicts the plain meaning of the words, then it's idiomatic, and should have an entry.  By the plain meaning of the words, "alcohol poisoning" simply means poisoning by alcohol, irrespective of the type of alcohol or the manner by which it caused poisoning.  I have no problem with someone using the term in this way, but in nearly every instance it will refer specifically to a medical diagnosis resulting from the victim drinking excessive amounts of non-toxic alcohol.  Unlike most examples of poisoning that leap to mind, it doesn't involve someone else attempting to harm the victim by administering a poisonous substance without the victim's knowledge, or environmental exposure to a toxic substance, even though it's theoretically possible for someone to be poisoned deliberately with toxic forms of alcohol.  In other words, the plain meaning of the words implies a different set of circumstances from the one normally associated with "alcohol poisoning".  That's why it's not sum-of-parts.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was actually in reply to Angr. Also, there's no such thing as non-toxic alcohol. Everything's toxic in fact, oxygen, water, everything. Toxicity is not in the makeup of the substance, it's the dose. I'm glad you're making the argument because it's a coherent, intelligent one, I just happen to disagree with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kept: Discussion has run for seven days and there is a clear consensus to keep this. Pur ple back pack 89  22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. We already have lead poisoning (and it survived a deletion nomination), as does the OED. I don't see how this case is any different. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oxford . Donnanz (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't close discussions prematurely. Any discussion that has had a new post within 7 days is still active. Also, 7-3 is not a "clear consensus". --WikiTiki89 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7-3 is a clear consensus. That's better than 2-to-1. Anything that's been open for a week or more, has five or more votes, and is better than 2-to-1 in one direction should be closed. There's no requirement that RfDs have to be dead for a week to be closed. Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  22:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have any detailed written guidelines as to when to close an RFD discussion. This is just general practice. Five of the votes were in the last three days. Who's to say that in the next three days we won't have five new delete votes? A "clear" consensus would imply something nearing unanimity, not 70%-30%. --WikiTiki89 23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's been a week and there hasn't been five delete votes... Not only is the likelihood of having five additional delete votes without any keeps improbable, it also won't be enough votes to get the article deleted. Please do not disruptively reopen discussions because you dislike the closer's results, especially if they are very unlikely to go your way. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Going against general practice is what is disruptive. Also, we have a generally accepted practice of allowing closings to be contested; which is part of the reason that the discussion remains on the page for at least a week after it is closed before being archived. --WikiTiki89 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that discussions shouldn't be closed 7-3 after a week, start a vote to make that policy. Until then, I stand by my decision that this should be closed as keep ASAP. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More Purple hypocrisy. When there is voted-on practice, you never shut up about how it's wrong and everything should be done your way. We can't win so why create rules you will ignore? Equinox ◑ 23:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from attacking me and confine yourself to whether or not this entry should be kept or deleted; and if kept, whether the discussion should be closed now or later. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It’s not an attack in this case; it’s merely an observation. You are a hypocrite until you prove otherwise. And if you can’t, you could at least admit it. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be going beyond the point of reasonable argument. It's completely unnecessary to resort to personal attacks here.  The point that Mr. Purple was trying to make is that the original question, whether to delete this term, clearly doesn't have much support, as the votes were more than two to one against it, and the discussion seemed to have died down some days ago.  That's a perfectly valid point, even if reasonable people could disagree as to whether that constitutes "consensus" to keep.  The question isn't whether there's consensus to keep, but whether there's consensus to delete.  And so far it's not even close.  I also understand the argument that the discussion should be left open if people want to comment or respond to other comments.  That's all that needed to be said.  Let's let it stop here and get on with the business of deciding if we should keep this term or not.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you search for "alcohol poisoning" + "{type of alcohol}" on Google Books you will find that this phrase is demonstrably used to refer to poisoning from several types of alcohol.
 * As for it being a specific diagnosis, so what? So are broken ankle, shellfish allergy and neck pain. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a standard manual of diagnoses, it might behoove us to have all the entries in that manual. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  00:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Wiktionary is a dictionary, not a medical encyclopedia. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed as keep (again): Now satisfies User:Wikitiki89's request that there be no new votes for a week. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  15:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  00:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)