Talk:Hangover

User:174.103.115.142 and User:74.135.90.179:

Content you added here and here and here, is not reliably sourced per WP:MEDRS. If, after you read MEDRS, you don't understand it, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I still do not understand. I take from MEDRS that reputable secondary sources should be used, and not primary sources. I see the mistake that I made in the first two edits by citing primary sources, but my third and final revision consisted only of reputable secondary sources that were reviews of existing research. For example, the first came from Planta Medica, a leading peer-reviewed international journal in the field of natural products, and was a review of available literature on Hovenia dulcis's use in many different fashions. Could you explain what I am missing to make this "reliably sourced?" I have many different primary and secondary sources confirming the edit I made, I just need some help on which ones to use and how to cite them in a compliant manner. Thanks! 174.103.115.142 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So here is the last edit

One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract). In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover. In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover^[1]. A review on Hovenia dulcis published in 2010 noted that this extract presents a strong candidate for use in the treatment of alcohol hangover, primarily due to its alcohol detoxification properties. The review notes that "the increased level of alcohol-induced liver ALDH activity by treatment with H. dulcis extracts suggests that H. dulcis can effectively relieve the alcohol hangover through enhancing the catabolism of ethanol." ^[2] A second review published in Drug and Alcohol Review in 2005 noted that "it has now been proved that the extract of H. dulcis, or its complex formulae, hasten detoxification of alcohol," as well as noting that "the extracts of H. dulcis were also more effective in enhancing ALDH activity than ADH activity, [which] is one of the possible explanations of how H. dulcis could relieve hangover effectively, by decreasing acetaldehyde concentration quickly in the liver and blood." ^[3] In fact, the review notes that "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking." ^[4]

The beginning of that is 100% unsourced promotional violation of policy as it was the first 2 times, and to be frank I stopped reading. I will have a look at the secondary sources in a while. Read that link in the meantime, please. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for the feedback. I disagree, however, with your characterization of the beginning of the entry. To take it sentence by sentence:

"One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract)" - This is widely accepted and acknowledged in both of the secondary sources in this entry. Ie, "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking."

"In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." - If you would like a citation for this, I could look into the multitude of products in Korea that utilize H. dulcis in their hangover prevention drinks. This sentence serves to educate readers, who read the 'management' section of the page in an effort to learn potential remedies for a hangover, on the market in Korea for hangover drinks that utilize H. dulcis. For instance, you can review https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/inside-koreas-booming-anti-hangover-industry, which shows that Korea's anti-hangover industry has increased 10-fold in 15 years. The article also notes that the market leader is Condition, which accounts for over half of all anti-hangover sales. Condition uses Hovenia dulcis in their drink as the functional ingredient to prevent a hangover (http://english.cj.net/brand/list_food/condition.asp). This provides the reader with an understanding that this is "eastern medicine" that is widely used to treat a hangover.

"In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." - This has a citation to the company's website, documenting the validity of the assertion. In regards to your suggestion that this is a "promotional violation of policy," this statement does not promote the company in any way, but merely notes a fact that the company sells a drink with Hovenia dulcis in it, purporting that the company claims it is a hangover cure. The statement neither confirms nor denies the efficacy of the product, but instead provides factual information about the existence of the product. Merely stating that a product exists for a stated purpose relevant to both the page title and surrounding material does not constitute promotion in my mind. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, however. I view it as similar to the "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin have been proposed. . ." wherein aspirin is a particular brand that contains a component (NSAID) that is being discussed. 174.103.115.142 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WP is built from independent reliable sources. This is unsourced and promotional: "One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract)". This is unsourced and promotional: " In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." This is 100% advertising sourced to the company's website: "In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover." I will look at the rest, as I said. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle.

The 2005 source is too old per WP:MEDDATE

I have read PMID 20379955 now and all it says that it has a long history of use in Korean and Japanese traditional medicine; there are no clinical studies so we cannot say anything about if it works or not.

I will add some content about this herb, based on PMID 20379955.Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In regards to your comment about the 2010 review that "there are no clinical studes so we cannot say anything about if it works or not," citation requirements that you noted under MEDRS do not require that the review include clinical studies to be included or referenced. Therefore, the conclusion and interpretations of the review should be noted, perhaps with a notation to the reader that the statements, though based on multiple independent studies, are not based on clinical trials. In fact, if you look into regulatory compliance law, clinical trials are rarely completed on items that are dietary supplements or functional foods as defined by 21 CFR 111 (FDA Compliance), as clinical trials are often reserved for drugs. In regards to the 2005 source being too old, WP:MEDDATE notes that "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." In this regard, very few reviews are published in regards to hangovers. This "guideline" on the date of a review serves to prevent information that is outdated and that has been updated in a new review from being published. In this case, the review in 2005 does not contain any information that has been updated or changed, and as such should not be excluded based on WP:MEDDATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.115.142 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The only MEDRS souce you have brought and the most recent i found is that 2010 paper. All it says is that it used in traditional medicine; it says nothing about efficicy or safety. In WP writing about health, if there is not actual evidence from clinical trials that something is safe and effective, it is indeed "unproven." Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "unproven" with "untested and discredited." The "Unsupported Remedies" section states that it is a list of "untested or discredited treatments." Hovenia dulcis 1) has been tested and shown to be effective and 2) in no way, shape or form has been been "discredited." Thus, if you, who apparently is the expert on hangover research (though I am ACTUALLY a PhD alcohol researcher), really dont think that there is evidence that "proves" it works as a hangover cure, I am okay with maintaining (until further researched is published) that it is "unproven." In this case, it would be "Potentially Beneficial," as opposed to "untested and discredited." 174.103.115.142 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware you could get a PhD in hangovers...thats sounds pretty cool. When you add the name of a product, it is promotion. If you exaggerate the capability of a herb, from data published in a review from sketchy journal with a tiny impact factor, thats a POV bias. You don't really need a whole nice looking paragraph for the herb, if there is a MEDRS source, one little "Herb X is traditionally used in country x, however there is no data to support its use" should suffice.Petergstrom (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I took out the content for now, til we settle this. Also, IP 174, "aspirin" is not a brand name in the US. That was what we call a WP:POINTY edit. Don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

IP, you said "1) has been tested and shown to be effective". Please provide a MEDRS source that says this with regard to humans. thx Also please note that the leader to the list says: " Other untested or discredited treatments include:". As far as I can see this is indeed "untested". Happy to see evidence otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Jytdog on just taking it out for now 64.150.190.32 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And regarding the earlier comment that clinical trials are not often done for dietary (or herbal) supplements...that's simply untrue. A few examples (though not a comprehensive list) of herbal remedies that have been examined in clinical trials (I'm not commenting here on whether they work or not but simply stating they've been evaluated in RCTs) would include saw palmetto, St. John's wort, turmeric, and green tea extract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Finlandia Vodka.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caña (Chilean slang). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The findings of this new study should be added:

https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2020/04/01/bmjnph-2019-000042

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200430191302.htm

- Largest randomized placebo controlled doublind hangover-interventiontrial performed at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany

- Statistic significant reduction of hangover symptoms through plant extract mix

- Hangover is not caused by dehydration

- Vitamines and electrolytes do not improve hangover symptoms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:4C0:180C:4490:E99C:F5BA:D016 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Irish flu. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 31#Irish flu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that this page makes no reference to the history of the term 'hangover', or 'hungover'. There is a common explanation available, although I do not have a reliable source to hand. Maybe the page's authors can add an appropriate reference. The common explanation involves literally hanging over a rope (for a small price), until you've slept it off, and in the knowledge that you're not going to be robbed. See The Real Meaning of Hangover.TonyP (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I just read that rubbish on facebook and did not believe it - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/12/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-hangovers#:~:text=But%20the%20word%20hangover%20has,up%20in%20reference%20to%20alcohol this nespaper article mentions "It first appeared in the English vocabulary in the 19th century as an expression for describing unfinished business from meetings, but it was not until 1904 that the word began to crop up in reference to alcohol."

BUT I do agree for the need of a paragraph or section on the name history as even the wiki-dictionary does not have that either DavidAnstiss (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@DavidAnstiss@Tonyproctor "The effects of hangovers have been hanging around for ages. The word itself, however, has only been fermenting since the late 19th century. Originally, hangover described someone or something that remained or simply survived, but it was later distilled into common use as a word for the effects of overconsumption of alcohol or drugs. These days, hangover can also suggest an emotional letdown or an undesirable prolongation of notes or sounds from a loudspeaker." Doug Weller talk 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited source about kudzu says that the root is not used in traditional medicine for hangover, but is being touted in west otherwise. But the essay depicts like kudzu is a common hangover cure. This is misleading. I think the paragraph on kudzu can be deleted entirely. Inquisitive creature (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's okay to say "it's been marketed but it makes things worse"; we just need to not tout it as a traditional thing. Artoria2e5 🌉 01:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, Pueraria lobata in the article refers to the root and not the... binomial name. Gross. --Artoria2e5 🌉 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Epidemiology section mentions about a 1990 study done in new england and cites two sources—1 primary and one secondary. There is a mention about 29% students missing classes due to hangover recovery. While the statement is indeed written in secondary source, it gives the primary source as the reference for its data. However the primary source clearly states that only 25% of the sample reported hangover and 8% lost classes due to it. There is indeed a mention that 29% lost some hours of normal functioning in recovery from drinking. The "in recovery" term wasn't defined by the study and the percentage is obviously higher than the percentage of subjects hungover. Also no allusion was made that "in recovery" translated into school time. Hence I believe this statement is a misinterpretation of primary source by the secondary source. Also since it adds minimal value to the article, if any, I believe the statement and the citation of secondary source for this data can be removed. Inquisitive creature (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Inquisitive creature:, makes a lot of sense,  Done. Thanks! Artoria2e5 🌉 01:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Section society and culture. It has been specified that 3.3 bn USD is lost in wages each year due to hangover as per a british study. The source cited is a review by Wiese et al. However the study, while mentioning that 3.3 bn usd is lost, specifies hangover as main cause but not the sole cause. The review itself references to another review by crofton.J as the source of this data. The review by Crofton.J, while indeed specifying the figure, doesn't exactly defines the area of loss, but instead refers to another study by Mc Donell & Maynard. The Mc Donell & Maynard study, while specifying the loss, mentions that it is the loss incurred by industries due to alcoholism of employees, due to several reasons including hangover. However no mention is made to hint that the loss actually refers to wages. I feel this is a misinterpretation by Wiese et al, which was once again misinterpreted by editors here. Since the statement adds little value to essay, I'm of opinion that it should be deleted.

Inquisitive creature (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. You are good at this stuff. --Artoria2e5 🌉 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Society and culture: Hangover related losses in canada are estimated to be 1.4 bn/year. Wiese et al has been cited as the source for this data. While the source indeed states this, it does so while citing Single.E et al study. However Single.E et al states that the costs are lost due to alcohol related "morbidity". The study makes no attempt to define morbidity or provide various causes of the same. I opine that attribution of entire morbidity to hangover by Wiese et al, is oversimplification at best & misinterpretation at worst, since several potential causes like pancreatitis, gastritis, early liver failure are neglected.

Inquisitive creature (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also  Done. Maybe you can be a little bolder and not wait for someone coming in a whole year later, but I guess this works too.--Artoria2e5 🌉 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)