text:
User talk:Alan McBeth

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Popoloca language and Popoluca is not the same thing and each needs a page
You have deleted and mered my page on the popoloca language with my other page on Popoluca. The languages are distinct and untelated as you would be able to see if you had read the popoluca page before merging. Each language needs it's separate page, popoluca currently serves as a kind of disambiguating page explaining the difference. I have reverted your deletion and merger so please don't do it again. Maunus 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reply: Yes they do deserve their own articles both Popoloca and Popoluca are one of the 62 official languages of Mexico. I will make the popoluca page into a disambiguation page then.Maunus 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Still of Speculation in Mansfield Park.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Still of Speculation in Mansfield Park.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Abakwi language
Re your tagging of Abakwi language: It hardly meets a WP:CSD criterion. Were you saying that the whole thing was a hoax? I.e. not just that Finlay invented the language, but that someone invented Finlay's inventing it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it now. Having looked a bit deeper into it. It's a nice hoax, though... I'd still say it's not a speedy. Want to prod it? People who worked on it earlier were of the opinion we should leave it so as not to let other people be deceived by "sources" outside WP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the article should stay—people have been taken in by the hoax, and it's a waste of time for reality-based linguists to work out that this is a hoax afresh each time somebody discovers it. And after all, Wikipedia is not paper, we're not going to run out of space. -- Ngio 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had another go at the article. It's an odd case--Abakwi is certainly not notable, neither as a language nor as a hoax, but the article itself is still useful, esp. for people who care about Papuan languages (like me and most of the people I interact with on WP). I think the case for keeping it is sufficient that it should at least have some discussion before removing it. If you still think it should go, submit it to Article for Deletion. Cheers, Ngio 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Taphephobia
I would like to invite you to join in working with Fear of being buried alive. It looks like Iam really getting old to completely forget this very notable phenomemon. Probably I was put off track with thes silly modern coinage, taphephobia. (the correct one would be taphophobia) `'mikkanarxi 18:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Spectrum
Hi, I reversed your edit from Feb. 15, where you overwrote the article Spectrum by doing a copy/paste move from Spectrum (disambiguation). This edit was not compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Firstly, copy/paste page moves are never permitted. Pages may be moved only by the use of the "move" button. If an article cannot be moved with the move button, you need assistance from an Administrator. Secondly, nontrivial page moves require consensus. I see no evidence of a discussion of this move. It should have been tagged on its talk page and listed at Requested moves prior to any move. Finally, Spectrum is a valid article on a worthy topic, not a mere dictionary definition. Wikipedia articles can sometimes be about words themselves, when appropriate. For another example, see Orange (word). Overwriting an entire article with text copied from another page is not acceptable.

I restored Spectrum (disambiguation), and included changes made since Feb. 15.--Srleffler 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Still of Speculation in Mansfield Park.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Still of Speculation in Mansfield Park.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Randomppl
Another editor has added the  template to the article User:Randomppl, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jawbreaker Atari 800 screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jawbreaker Atari 800 screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alan McBeth


text:
Talk:Greater Napanee

Untitled
doesn't avril's song go "grew up in a five thousand-population town"? here it says 15,000?

 * Statistics Canada reports 15,400 as the official 2006 Census population of
 * Greater Napanee.--Atikokan (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What, you never heard of artistic license?

The town of Napanee has about 5000 in it, Greater Napanee is a relationship including Napanee and other small townships around it which makes up the 15,000 population

Besides, when Avril was growing up the sign into Napanee stated a population of 4000, if I remember correctly.

As a Napanee'er myself, I can verify that yes, the town itself has 5000 with "Greater" Napanee adding to the population. It includes many kms of small towns in all directions. When Avril was growing up, the sign said 5,000 and remained that way for many many years until the amalgamation.

Notable People
As Ryan Malcom grew up in Amherstview, not Napanee, I have removed him from this page. 67.193.211.142 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess he lived in Amherstview and commuted to high school in Napanee. Thanks for the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.203.1.9 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Malcolm Ryan and his family did live in Napanee after all and ran a business there too. Read story here --> http://www.napaneeguide.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2186332 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.1.134 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Walleye Capital of the World?
Says who? No reference. Is it volume of fish, number of fishermen, $ spent? What is the measure? I disagree, I believe many places in Northern Ontario would be far ahead of Napanee in volume of 'walleye' caught.

And, by the way, the correct Canadian term for this fish is pickerel; not walleye. That's American. Thank you. And good-night.

--Atikokan (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lists of individual businesses
This is ugly. Greater Napanee reads like one long advertisement, complete with excess exclamation! points! The info about Dixie Lee and the restaurant at 401/Palace Road is outdated, not sure what else is no longer there. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the +1-613-354- White Pages directory. K7L (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Napanee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321180704/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page750.html to http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page750.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Napanee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202030638/http://radio3.cbc.ca/ to http://radio3.cbc.ca/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008052602/http://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/companyinformationcanada/ccc-gibbard.htm to http://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/companyinformationcanada/ccc-gibbard.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable people section in the article
Hi, is there a specific reason why the "Notable people" section is so very detailed? It would be much more easier to read if only the names are listed. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Greater Napanee


text:
User talk:PoopDog

Welcome!
- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Master Chief?
I recently posted an article about the voice actor Steve Downes (voice of Master Chief, Halo). To my surprise, not 10 minutes after I posted it, you deleted it. Why so? The only description I am given is "deleteagain." Either please explain to me what "deleteagain" means or if this means nothing, please explain why my article was insufficient. Thank you, PoopDog, Oct. 5, 2005  8:30 PM
 * The article was deleted on the grounds that its subject wasn't notable (in fact, it was deleted as non-notable twice). If you want to resurrect the article, you should bring it to Votes for undeletion. Be sure to specify what has changed since the last time it was deleted to make him notable now. --fvw *  00:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:PoopDog


text:
User:Amorpisseur

Who cares who I am...

title: User:Amorpisseur


text:
Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes

The notoriety of these Atlantic hurricanes has led to the retirement of the names. The names were removed from the lists of hurricane names and have not been used since.

This list does not include any devastating storms from the current season until they are officially retired by the World Meteorological Organization in the following year.

Note: this category includes 'articles' on hurricanes, not 'categories' that exist for some hurricanes.

title: Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes


text:
User talk:Lato~enwiki

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Lato. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Lato~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lato~enwiki


text:
Talk:Atis

Removal of Ifugaos
What does the Ifugaos have to do with the Atis? Are they a subgroup? Let 's remove if they are not related.--Jondel 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Aeta
If Ati and Aeta is the same shouldn't this article be merged with Aeta? Rolf-Peter Wille 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atis


text:
Talk:Hurricane Hazel

Canada bias?
I know it's a featured article, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. There seems to be a Canadian bias in the article. Nine of the fourteen sentences in the lede cover the Canadian impact, and when introducing the US portion, it even says "On its way to Canada, it affected several more states." There is a separate article for Canada's impact already, and yet that is the largest portion of the impact section. Is it just me, or does something seem off? The North Carolina section seems decent, I suppose, but for producing hurricane force gusts in New York City, it seems that most of the US is glossed over. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've discussed this quite a bit with me in IRC, but to respond briefly here as well. While Hazel was certainly a very significant event both in the US and Canada, it was a much more unique event in Canada, especially Ontario. There simply is more sourcing and information available on the effects in Canada. As regards the lede, I attempted to not merely mechanically summarise the article sections, but to bring out the important, and unique characteristics of Hazel. If you have anything specific that could be added -- or removed -- I will happily consider it. However, I can't exactly do much: I've split a lot of the Canada stuff into its own article, but I can't make something (article content) out of nothing (sources about the US that are not as extensive than for Canada).  Maxim (talk)  00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a storm's uniqueness should result in it having the majority of content, particularly when there is more damage and deaths in the United States. I'm fine with there being a Canadian sub-article, but given that, the information should be proportional to the impact. The fact that Hurricane Irene was one of only two hurricanes on record to strike New Jersey doesn't mean that should get significantly more emphasis. By word count, the US section is only 75% of the length of the Canadian section, despite causing 6 more deaths and twice the damage. Furthermore, Hazel was actually a hurricane in the US, but was extratropical in Canada. I really think the Canadian section should be cut down a bit so there isn't undue weight. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hurricanehink here. If you'll just look at the lede, you will see two paragraphs contaminated with the Canada bias. It summarizes the US impact a bit too much, and not even without mentioning Canada. About 50 percent of the lede is about Canada right now. If anything, this should focus more on Haiti. I know the sources for the country might be sparse, but for the amount of destruction and deaths it caused there, I don't think "In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40% of the coffee trees and 50% of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come" would suffice. And lol, if you're going to inflate Canada damage totals, do it for the rest of the totals as well. Auree    ★  17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Patent Canada bias
I know this issue has previously been discussed, but it was never fully resolved, and with Wikipedia's increasingly rigorous quality standards over the previous couple of years I think it has become all the more pressing. The neutrality in this article is severely compromised by an overbearing amount of information on Canada, in contrast to considerably less coverage on other, similarly devastated areas. Even from the lead, the bias is strikingly obvious, as about 70% of the readable prose in that section covers Canada (the country is even mentioned when U.S. impact is covered). This, along with a handful of other issues, such as an oddly structured meteorological history with mentions of impact and several poorly worded paragraphs, lead me to believe a FAR is appropriate.  Auree  ★ ★  21:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our articles must reflect the coverage in reliable sources. Please offer some sources that could be used to pad some section you are not happy with. For those interested in the article who are living in the US, you may have a bit luck with that than I would.
 * Let's start with the areas the storm struck during its initial stages. It moved right over Grenada at hurricane intensity, passing very close to nearby islands, yet there's absolutely no information on those countries in the article. I doubt there are no reliable sources out there at all that cover the impact in these areas, especially Grenada, and a quick Google Search already brought up some of these.  Auree   ★ ★  22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please share the results of your Google search; it would help in allaying some of the concerns about the article.  Maxim (talk)  22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There were a few book sources with info on Grenada, but as I'm on my phone at the moment I can't regularly access Google Books. I recommend starting with this source, provided to me by User:Jason Rees, which has a lot of detailed impact for several of the affected areas, including Grenada.  Auree   ★ ★  22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix it. We could reach a compromise between what you and your IRC pals want, and the greater Canadian significance in terms of the aftermath.
 * "So fix it" is a horribly lousy response, so I won't even bother replying. I however do resent the fact that you so acrimoniously presume I'm involved with the IRC, based on... what exactly? lol. Even if I were, it has little do with anything.  Auree   ★ ★  22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See sofixit. If you have a problem with an article, the best way to resolve it to actually fix it. I have significant constraints especially on time, and to spend tens of hours researching the article again, also considering the time I had spent a few years ago, is simply out of the question. So I merely suggest to you to consider the philosophy of "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." The comment about IRC was mostly in light of what was said in the edit summaries, but what I had said above was out of line. I apologize, and I have struck the offending part of my comment.  Maxim (talk)  22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What issues? Please be specific!
 * Please provide some actionable criticisms. What paragraphs are poorly worded; what is it that you don't like in the wording? How would you structure the meteorological history?
 * I don't think the random bits of impact (deaths, rainfall, etc.) are appropriate for the meteorological history. The last paragraph largely covers rainfall, damage, and deaths in Canada, which is highly redundant with the impact section later on. An example of awkward wording, immediately from the start of the MH: "Sufficiently organized to be deemed a hurricane, the original hurricane hunter wind measurement of 110 km/h (70 mph) soon increased to 160 km/h (100 mph) at the centre, with a forward speed of 16 km/h (10 mph)." Overall strange, but the major qualm is that this implies the "original" (?) hurricane hunter wind measurement was what was deemed to be sufficiently organized with a forward speed of 16 km/h, not the actual tropical system.    Auree   ★ ★  22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link for FAR: WP:FAR.   Maxim (talk)  21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of specifics in the section above. And for what it's worth, I haven't been on IRC for several hours. I had no idea this discussion was going to happen, but I completely agree with the sentiment. "On its way to Canada, it affected several more states" - this basically sums up my personal frustration with the article and the Canadian bias, and the US coverage is pretty scant in the lede. There shouldn't be bias in general in the article - it should just plainly state the facts. There is already a Canadian sub-article, anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote a bit of the lead. I haven't worked in further details about other countries as you had requested, but I hope that what I've fixed is a good start. I think it would be good if you and anyone else interested would actually make edits. I promise I won't go crazy and start reverting stuff on sight. :) If I have strong objections, I'll voice them here. I support adding content, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about culling something just because it's about Canada.  Maxim (talk)  22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you efforts, the lead is looking much better already. I'll try my best to hunt for more sources later on, but as of now I'm short on time.  Auree   ★ ★  22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link for FAR: WP:FAR.   Maxim (talk)  21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of specifics in the section above. And for what it's worth, I haven't been on IRC for several hours. I had no idea this discussion was going to happen, but I completely agree with the sentiment. "On its way to Canada, it affected several more states" - this basically sums up my personal frustration with the article and the Canadian bias, and the US coverage is pretty scant in the lede. There shouldn't be bias in general in the article - it should just plainly state the facts. There is already a Canadian sub-article, anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote a bit of the lead. I haven't worked in further details about other countries as you had requested, but I hope that what I've fixed is a good start. I think it would be good if you and anyone else interested would actually make edits. I promise I won't go crazy and start reverting stuff on sight. :) If I have strong objections, I'll voice them here. I support adding content, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about culling something just because it's about Canada.  Maxim (talk)  22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you efforts, the lead is looking much better already. I'll try my best to hunt for more sources later on, but as of now I'm short on time.  Auree   ★ ★  22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you efforts, the lead is looking much better already. I'll try my best to hunt for more sources later on, but as of now I'm short on time.  Auree   ★ ★  22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing this out...If there seems to be a lack of info outside Canada, why not search for more to add? I haven't done any research myself but maybe the bias is the result of not enough research into areas outside Canada. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in improving the article, you can help with the research. That said, I'm skeptical of how you'll be able to flesh out the sections that might be deficient, simply because I've put effort into addressing these concerns for several years now. Perhaps your research efforts might prove more fruitful. As for me, I feel I've done a good job of researching the article, and I would of course appreciate assistance in locating, receiving, and working with sources that I may have missed or otherwise not able to access or find.  Maxim (talk)  21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Either one of two things IMO should be done. The first is add more non-Canada impact, the second is to trim down on Canada. I'm sorry but this article is very Canadain bias. You may argue that it got a lot of coverage there, hence why their is a sub-article. However, the majority of deaths/damage was not from Canada; therefore, Canada should not have nearly as much coverage. YE Pacific  Hurricane 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage is not proportional only to how many people were killed by a natural disaster.  Maxim (talk)  22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am one of the ones that has been on IRC while this has been going on, however i do not feel that we we do not need to go for an FAR quite yet, without the main editors who are complaining about this articles FA status proving that there is more information available out there.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources

 * From the Global Tropical/Extratropical Cyclone Atlas. (from and )
 * Preliminary Report from NOAA (very useful for the expansion/amelioration of several sections, such as the MH, PR and the US)
 * Google Books sources:
 * Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Volume 51 (Snippet view) "Hurricane Hazel in 1954 passed near to Grenada, but winds on the island were limited to 45 m.p.h., although winds up to 100 m.p.h. in Carriacou caused considerable damage."
 * Report on Grenada 1957 (p. 5, Snippet View) "The island of Carriacou was struck by the hurricane code-named Hazel on the night of the 25th October. Damage to property and coastal vessels, exclusive of Government property, was estimated at $80,000. A subscription list was opened in Grenada and closed at the end of the year after collecting $3,860 from local donors."
 * Stokes, Barbara F. very descripte of how the hurricane happened in the US
 * Hairr, John lots of impact for the Carolinas, describes Hazel as the greatest hurricane to hit North Carolina in the century.

Problematic areas

 * Lead needs to be re-written to be a more complete summary
 * Dodgy wording in Meteorological history
 * Off-topic details in Meteorological history
 * Add more about non-Canada impact/aftermath

Comments
Feel free to add to the lists.  Maxim (talk)  22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA to-do list
With Hazel set to be today's featured article on October 5 and the sub-par state of the article...it's community collaboration time, team! This has already been discussed off-wiki but now I'm dragging you all into actually working on it. ,, , , , , . I've outlined a general plan of attack to whip this article into shape, but feel free to add more bullet points on specifics for what needs to be done.

 * Major issues
 * Lacking comprehensiveness for Caribbean and United States
 * Slight Canadian bias throughout.

 * Lead
 * Needs to be rewritten to include the met. history, preps, and put less weight on Canada.

 * Preparations (Julian)
 * Only the basic details outside of Canada are present
 * Need to recheck the preliminary report for warning details and such to be certain information is correct
 * Search newspapers.com for relevant details

 * Impact
 * Caribbean (Hylian Auree)
 * There has to be more information available on Puerto Rico given this statement: "Puerto Rico suffered its worst flooding since 1899 as a result of the hurricane." More info can certainly be gleamed from the Monthly Weather Review
 * if you can work your source magic to find Spanish sources covering Puerto Rico and Cuba that would be greatly appreciated.
 * Double check for Haiti information given the high death toll (not holding my breath on this one, though).
 * Search newspapers.com for relevant details
 * United States
 * Double check all currently cited sources for additional information that can be added.
 * Search newspapers.com for relevant details
 * Search for possible environmental papers
 * Canada
 * Trim to three paragraphs

 * Aftermath
 * Caribbean
 * Search newspapers.com for relevant details
 * Look for any possible papers about procedures that changed
 * United States
 * Search newspapers.com for relevant details
 * Search for possible papers on post-storm effects (such as trauma, procedure changes, government policy, etc.)
 * Canada
 * Trim to two or three paragraphs

 * Citations (Hylian Auree)
 * Need to be cleaned up to meet FA standards

Hope you're all eager to help out so we can keep showing the best side of WPTC on the main page! ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, the MH is done! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Strengty discepancy
The text account of the strength of Hazel north of the Carolinas certainly seems to differ from the Saffir-Simpson path depicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:B1F5:E682:9FA1:E088 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Hazel


text:
User talk:Donya~enwiki

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Donya. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Donya~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Donya~enwiki


text:
Talk:Hurricane Connie

Todo
More impact. Jdorje 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Death/Damage Toll Discrepencys
Over on the list of retired tropical cyclone names I list 25 deaths in the United States based on various editions of the NHC's The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones and $25 million based on the seasonal summuary. However this article lists 74 deaths and at least $86 million in damage. When i look at the references provided something is telling me not to just roll over and add them in, but to check first.Jason Rees (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Connie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206051005/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Main page appearance
This is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 6, 2019, and specifically paging the FA nominator(s),. It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at Today's featured article/December 6, 2019.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Connie


text:
User talk:Blankanarchist

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

title: User talk:Blankanarchist


text:
Talk:Pope Boniface VIII

Objectivity
Whatever one might think about Boniface VIII this article seems to take a decidedly negative slant towards him and can hardly be considered objective mainly due to its use of modifiers in a few key places. Note especially the phrases "meddled incessantly", and "so resentful" which can easily be construed as expressing an opinion. Also the "process against memory" section should include a caveat that those proceedings appear, historically speaking, to be politically motivated and that it is likely that many of those sayings were conjured up by persons with an axe to grind. Boniface was an extremely controversial pope in his own era and even to this day and made many enemies. That should be taken into account here. --Kurtkoeh 17:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A statement like "Regardless, he is certainly regarded with horror by most legitimate catholic theologians" does not contain information; it simply tells the reader what to think. I removed it. --Wetman 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Can someone check the source cited for the claim that he committed suicide by gnawing on his arm? He was beaten pretty badly during the kidnapping incident.  This suicide claim sounds like a legend created by his enemies to place him in hell. The title of the source, "Bad Popes", seems to indicate a bias in that source.  I have seen other sources that contradict the suicide claim, but I haven't looked at them in several years.  --Kurtkoeh (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said he committed suicide? That would be a big deal. But people under stress actually do harm themselves, knowingly or otherwise: biting nails, pulling out hair, cutting. Vicedomino (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

process against the memory
This phrase falls oddly on my ear. Could it be from a non-native-speaker trying to render posthumous trial? In some languages the word for "trial" is cognate with "process".

OTOH I don't know much about Roman Catholic canon law; maybe they do have something called a "process against the memory". --Trovatore 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Catholic Encyclopedia" link from the article does in fact use the phrase. Maybe someone should explain it, though. --Trovatore 02:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Was Boniface the last pope to claim such powers?
The article states:

"No subsequent popes were to repeat Boniface VIII's claims of political supremacy."

While it's true that with Boniface VIII papal claims of superiority over temporal leaders reached their apogee (as set out in the bull "Unam Sanctam"), did not John XXII repeat these claims in his dispute with Emperor Louis IV?--qp10qp 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I would suggest that one read Pope Paul IV's Cum ex apostolatus officio to find an even later pope who claimed a sort of political supremacy. My Wikidness 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I can handle the expansion, give me a day or so. --Treva 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, its all set, enjoy! --Treva 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Benedetto or Benedict?
The article sometimes uses Benedetto and sometimes Benedict as his birth name. Which is more correct? It should be made consistent, or the inconsistencies should be explained. Alienmercy 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Benedictus (Latin), Benedetto (Italian), Benoît (French), Benedict (English), Benny (Brooklynese).Vicedomino (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Heretical quotes attributed to Boniface
Is it necessary to repeat all of these here? I would expect that an inquest into his memory, conducted at a time when the papacy was under the thumb of Boniface's enemy, the King of France, would hardly be objective. It would suit such an inquiry rather well to have various heterodox or heretical quotes attributed to the late Pope. While I have no doubt that the commission did indeed record these quotes as being attributed to Boniface, I do have doubts about whether he actually held these views. To include them in this article, some justification should be given, particularly as the only scholarly opinion advanced is actually dubious on whether Boniface held any of these views.

If am tempted to amend that section if no further justification can be given. --Iacobus 02:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I have amended the relevant section in the article to delete the actual opinions, for the reasons given above. It should also be noted that they were not adequately referenced. I also amended the surrounding text to make better sense after the excision, and also amended the reference to Boniface's opinions as "bold" and "heterodox" as anachronistic. To the medieval mind they would have been heretical and, to that mind, there was nothing "bold" (in any positive sense) about heresy.--Iacobus 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Death of Celestine
It should be at least mentioned that Boniface had Celestine imprisoned for 10 months before his death. LHM 23:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Best remembered for
The intro says  Today, he is probably best remembered for his feuds with Dante, who placed him in the Eighth Circle of Hell in his Divina Commedia, among the simonists.

I believe that this sentence is POV when it is placed in the intro of the article. It is also somewhat inaccurate, because most people remember him for the bull Unam Sanctam and for the conflict with Philip the Fair rather than what Dante might have said about him.

76.67.157.61 (talk)

 * I fixed it a little. Check it out. --Againme (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Massacre of Palestrina?
According to Jay Charles, The Evolution of the Bible, 2006 (http://books.google.com/books?id=mgqyPtjqc0wC): "Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) Was a true power mongrel [sic], he had whole towns murdered, tortured thousands of innocent women and children, and ruled through fear. He actually had every man, woman, child and animal massacred in the Italian town of Palestrina in 1298." If this is true, it's probably worth incorporating in the article. Mark314159 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to be self-published. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing text?
The phrase "the first in of many such jubilees take place in Rome" is completely meaningless. It looks as if something got deleted by mistake, but of course I can't tell what it might have been.213.127.210.95 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "the first in of many such jubilees to take place in Rome" surely - see the lead also. Done Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Burial
The text makes absolute nonsense. I refer to, "Boniface VIII had arranged that this would be done to offset the fact that his predecessor was still alive, which caused him to worry that the legitimacy of his own papacy would be thrown into doubt. In choosing such a burial, Boniface VIII was trying to show that he was a legitimate pope with the implicit support from the grave of a popular predecessor, Boniface IV." If his predecessor, Celestine V, were still alive, the tomb would have had to have been chosen within the first seventeen months of Boniface's reign, since Celestine died on May 23, 1296. But the fact is, that we do not know when Boniface chose his burial place. "...this would be done..." is ambiguous. What, exactly, did Boniface arrange to have done? The fact is that popes were regularly buried in S. Peter's and it is often mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis that a pope was buried in Such-and-such Chapel, next to the body of Pope So-and-so. Such proximity did not confer posthumous legitimacy--ever. I propose that the offending sentence be removed. By the way, the date of the exhumation was wrong; I fixed it and added the documentary source. Vicedomino (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Angelicum
I propose the removal of the phrase, "...which would develop into the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in the 20th century...", on the grounds that it has nothing to do with Boniface VIII or anything he did, nor does it refer to the XIII or XIV centuries in which he lived. Vicedomino (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Vicedomino (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding nation states
The phrase "... a time of expanding nation states ..." is wildly anachronistic. Boniface lived at the height of the age of Feudalism. Nobody thought in terms of 'nation states'. Indeed the papacy and the Emperor were two institutions which worked against the idea of individual nations. The contest was between the two swords, religious and civil, Church and Empire, and whether they were coordinate, or one was supreme. Italy and Rome in particular were beginning to enjoy the (quite ancient) idea of city-states. I suggest that the phrase be deleted. Vicedomino (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Infallibility
An editor deletes the following statement:

 * Philgoetz (talk | contribs) (→Posthumous trial: Deleted "They had a point, in that the persecution implied that a pope was not infallible in matters of faith and morals." The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility applies only when he speaks ex cathedra.)

The grounds for deletion are (1) POV Catholic; (2) anachronistic, since the definition quoted is a mid-19th century one. One doesn't judge the opinions of 14th century people based on 19th century considerations. For an exposition of earlier views, and a wider range of opinion, see, e.g.:

I suggest that the sentence be returned to the text.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pope Boniface VIII
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pope Boniface VIII's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc": From Style (manner of address):  From Vatican Library:  From Papal conclave, 2013:  From Sapienza University of Rome: BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Papal visit scuppered by scholars 15 January 2008 From Catholic Church sexual abuse cases:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Your attempt to show AI is amusing. Your efforts at fixing are not. The suggestions are all irrelevant.
 * --Vicedomino (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hands cut off
Dumb-ass question from somebody who is not a specialist in this period:

Why does the near-contemporary picture of him on his deathbed show him as having had his hands cut off?Paulturtle (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * The fifteenth century manuscript illustration attempts to visualize the words of the chronicler Giovanni Villani, "...the grief which had hardened in the heart of Pope Boniface, by reason of the injury which he had received, produced in him, once he had come to Rome, a strange malady so that he gnawed at himself as if he were mad, and in this state he passed from this life on the twelfth day of October in the year of Christ 1303..." Villani disliked Boniface VIII, and the alleged gnawing has been disproved by the disinterment and autopsy of Boniface's body in the 17th century, at which his hands were discovered to be intact.

 * --Vicedomino (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Might be worth pointing out in the picture caption. Similar stories are told of Richard II of England (deposed 1399, died in prison the following year, quite possibly starved to death), so maybe "gnawing the flesh from his own arms" was a literary convention of the period for deposed rulers ...Paulturtle (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * That, alas, might constitute original research, or unsupported speculation, which are not allowed. And, as to captions, they are intended to identify the image, not provide additional data for the article.

 * --Vicedomino (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * It is perfectly permissible, and indeed helpful to people skimming through the article, to explain points of interest and notability in a picture.Paulturtle (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorted in LGBT cats

 * Category:LGBT Roman Catholic popes

Pope Boniface VIII was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in category. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle

He was accused of sodomy by Philip IV. That is the only fact mentioned in your link. Defamatory statements by one's enemies at a posthumous show trial are not generally considered authoritative.24.182.239.226 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Boniface VIII


text:
User talk:Leo Bolero

Signing comments
Please sign your comments by typing ' ' or clicking on the second-last button above the plaintext editor. This allows other editors to attribute the comment to you and generates a timestamp which is important for archival. Thanks. // Pathoschild 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

00:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leo Bolero


text:
User talk:Televators

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. android 79  00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, as this username has only been used for vandalism; working anonymously as User:69.204.184.208 to insert a photo of Carson Kressley in place of George Washington's portrait. android 79  19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Televators


text:
Penelope Milford

Penelope Dale Milford (born March 23, 1948) is an American stage and screen actress. She is best known for her role as Vi Munson in Coming Home (1978) for which she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. She also originated the role of Jenny Anderson in the Broadway musical Shenandoah, for which she was nominated for a Drama Desk Award in 1975.

Early life and education
Milford was born March 23, 1948, in St. Louis, Missouri and grew up in Illinois. She is the daughter of Richard George Milford and Ann Marie (nee Felt) Milford. She graduated from New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. Her younger brother, Kim, was an actor and musician until his death from heart failure at age 37.

Theatre
In 1972, she joined the Broadway cast of the play Lenny, about the life of actor Lenny Bruce. In 1974, she was cast as Jenny Anderson in the musical Shenandoah, based on the 1965 film of the same name. Shenandoah opened on Broadway on January 7, 1975, and was nominated for the Tony Award for Best Musical. For her performance, Milford was nominated for the first Drama Desk Award for Best Featured Actress.

Off-Broadway in 1971, Milford starred as Judith opposite Richard Gere in Long Time Coming and a Long Time Gone, a musical about artist Richard Fariña. Milford has appeared in Felix (1974), Fishing (1981) by Michael Weller, and Territorial Rites (1983). She also performed in a revue show titled The Second Hottest Show in Town.

In 2013, Milford played the role of Deborah in the Harold Pinter play A Kind of Alaska at the Cocoon Theatre in Rhinebeck, New York.

Television
Her first television appearance was on a 1976 episode of The Blue Knight. In 1980, Milford starred in Seizure: The Story of Kathy Morris, as Kathy Morris. Also in 1980 she co-starred in the Emmy Award winning television movie The Oldest Living Graduate starring Henry Fonda and Cloris Leachman. In 1982 she starred opposite Sondra Locke in the Jackie Cooper directed Emmy Award winning television film Rosie: The Rosemary Clooney Story. In this film she played Betty Clooney, the sister of Rosemary Clooney. In 1984, Penelope appeared in the Golden Globe award-winning television movie The Burning Bed starring Farrah Fawcett. In 1985 she guest starred on an episode of The Hitchhiker.

Film
Milford's first film appearance was as an extra on the Norman Mailer film Maidstone (1970). In 1974, she appeared in the movie Man on a Swing. She next played a fictional actress named Lorna Sinclair in Ken Russell's BAFTA-nominated 1977 film Valentino, about the life of actor Rudolph Valentino. In 1978, she was cast as Vi Munson in Coming Home, and she was nominated for an Academy Award, for Best Supporting Actress. In 1980, she appeared in the movie The Last Word. She plays a supporting role in Take This Job and Shove It and Endless Love. In 1982, she starred in the horror film Blood Link and then starred in the 1983 adventure film The Golden Seal.

After this time, her film appearances became less frequent, not appearing until the 1988 cult film Heathers. Her last few films include Cold Justice (1989), Miss Missouri (1990), Normal Life (1996), Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part II (1996) and Night of the Lawyers (1997).

Filmography

 * 1970 Maidstone (uncredited)
 * 1974 Man on a Swing as Evelyn Moore
 * 1976 The Blue Knight (1 episode)
 * 1977 Valentino as Lorna Sinclair
 * 1978 Coming Home as Vi Munson
 * 1979 The Last Word as Denise Travis
 * 1980 Seizure: The Story of Kathy Morris (TV) as Kathy Morris
 * 1980 The Oldest Living Graduate (TV) as Martha Ann
 * 1981 Take This Job and Shove It as Lenore Meade
 * 1981 Endless Love as Ingrid Orchester
 * 1982 Rosie: The Rosemary Clooney Story (TV) as Betty Clooney
 * 1982 Blood Link as Julie Warren
 * 1983 The Golden Seal as Tania Lee
 * 1984 The Burning Bed (TV) as Gaby
 * 1985 The Hitchhiker as Diane Hampton (1 episode)
 * 1989 Heathers as Pauline Fleming
 * 1989 Cold Justice as Eileen
 * 1990 Miss Missouri as Ann
 * 1996 Normal Life as Adele Anderson
 * 1996 Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part II as Woman In Woods, Henry's First Victim
 * 1997 Night of the Lawyers as Anna Carroll

title: Penelope Milford


text:
Alcohol and cancer

Alcohol and cancer have a complex relationship. Alcohol causes cancers of the oesophagus, liver, breast, colon, oral cavity, rectum, pharynx, and larynx, and probably causes cancers of the pancreas. Cancer risk, can occur even with light to moderate drinking. The more alcohol is consumed, the higher the cancer risk, and no amount can be considered completely safe.

Alcoholic beverages were classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 1988. An estimated 3.6% of all cancer cases and 3.5% of cancer deaths worldwide are attributable to consumption of alcohol (more specifically, acetaldehyde, a metabolic derivative of ethanol). 740,000 cases of cancer in 2020 or 4.1% of new cancer cases were attributed to alcohol.

Alcohol is thought to cause cancer through three main mechanisms: (1) DNA methylation, (2) Oxidative stress, and (3) Hormonal alteration. Additional mechanisms include microbiome dysbiosis, reduced immune system function, retinoid metabolism, increased levels of inflammation, 1-Carbon metabolism and disruption of folate absorption.

Heavy drinking consisting of 15 or more drinks per week for men or 8 or more drinks per week for women beverages/week contributed the most to cancer incidence compared with moderate drinking. The rate of alcohol related cases is 3:1 male:female, especially in oesophageal and liver cancers. Some nations have introduced alcohol packaging warning messages that inform consumers about alcohol and cancer. The alcohol industry has tried to actively mislead the public about the risk of cancer due to alcohol consumption, in addition to campaigning to remove laws that require alcoholic beverages to have cancer warning labels.

Cancers attributed to alcohol
In 2020, approximately 740,000 cases of alcohol-related cancers were identified globally with

 * 58% of cases (430,000) residing in Asia
 * 25% of cases (180,000) residing in Europe
 * 8% of cases (60,000) residing in North America
 * 5% of cases (39,000) residing in Latin America and the Caribbean
 * 3% of cases (23,000) residing in Africa
 * 1% of cases (7,000) residing in regions termed "other."

More than three-quarters of the 740,000 cases were in men.

United States
In the United States of America, alcohol-related cancer rates were highest in the following states: Delaware, Colorado, Washington, D.C., New Hampshire, and Alaska. Conversely, alcohol-related cancer rates were lowest in the following states: Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Utah.

From 2013 to 2016, approximately 19,000 (4%) cancer-related deaths in the United States were attributed to alcohol consumption each year, with breast cancer and esophageal cancer deaths being the most common in women and men respectively.

An estimated 3.2% of cancer deaths in United States were attributed to alcohol consumption. The distribution of mortality by state were consistent with the distribution of incident cases.

Europe
Approximately 10% and 3% of cancer diagnoses in European men and women respectively are attributed to alcohol consumption.

Europe: A 2011 study found that one in 10 of all cancers in men and one in 33 in women were caused by past or current alcohol intake.

Australia
Australia: A 2009 study found that 2,100 Australians die from alcohol-related cancer each year.

Alcohol as a carcinogen and co-carcinogen
In 1998, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer) of the World Health Organization classified alcoholic beverages as a carcinogen. Its evaluation states:

"There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages in humans. […] Alcoholic beverages are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

After more epidemiological evidence connecting alcohol and cancers became available, the IARC reconvened in 2007. Based on epidemiological studies, which revealed cancer risk was independent of the type of alcohol, and animal studies, which showed increased cancer risk with exposure to ethanol alone, the group determined that the ethanol in alcoholic beverages was carcinogenic to humans. Alcohol was determined to increase the risk of developing breast cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancers, pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer, and oral cancer. In 2009, the group determined that acetaldehyde which is a metabolite of ethanol is also carcinogenic to humans.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP) classified alcoholic beverages as a "known human carcinogen" in their 2000 Report on Carcinogens, and this classification remains current as of the 15th edition published in 2021. While the report distinguishes between the beverage itself and acetaldehyde (a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), classifying the latter as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," the overall message is clear: consuming alcoholic drinks poses a cancer risk.

A 2001 systematic review did not find a clear safe level of alcohol consumption where there is no increased risk of cancer.

Acetaldehyde
Alcohol metabolism generates genotoxic acetaldehyde and reactive oxygen species. The possible mechanisms for its carcinogenicity include formation of the possible mutagen acetaldehyde, and the induction of the cytochrome P450 system which is known to produce mutagenic compounds from promutagens.

Acetaldehyde is a byproduct of ethanol breakdown in the liver, metabolized by Alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), Cytochrome P-450 2E1 and bacterial catalases. The liver then normally eliminates 99% of the acetaldehyde. ALDH2 converts Acetaldehyde into acetate which is a byproduct that can be excreted through the liver. Those with ADH1B*1 have higher rates of conversion of ethanol into acetaldehyde while, people with ALDH2*2 have a slower conversion rate of acetaldehyde to acetate causing faster build up of acetaldehyde concentrations. 28-45% of east Asian populations carry the ALDH2*2 allele. An average liver can process 7 grams of ethanol per hour. For example, it takes 12 hours to eliminate the ethanol in a bottle of wine, giving 12 hours or more of acetaldehyde exposure.

The Acetaldehyde motif can bind DNA to alter its physical shape or block repair and synthesis mechanisms to induce mutations, breaks and exchanges. Acetaldehyde and ethanol both inhibit S-adenosyl-L-methiodine (SAMe) synthesis which is a methyl group transferase.

DNA methylation
DNA methylation is the addition of a methyl group to the carbon-5 of nucleotides. the most common methylation site is onto a cystine preceding guanine nucleotides. This methylation is catalyzed by DNA methyltransferase enzymes taking a methyl group from SAMe. Heavy alcohol consumption is thought to cause epigenetic changes by decreasing the availability of SAMe thereby changing the methylation pattern of DNA causing hypo or hypermethylation resulting in alteration of DNA transcription.

Oxidative stress
Oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation is a major player in cancer growth. the metabolism of ethanol by CYP450 2E1 into acetaldehyde has a byproduct of ROS. The presence of ROS in the cellular environment causes lipid peroxidation which can lead to exocyclic adducts. ROS in a tumor microenvironment can also act as an intercellular signal leading to up-regulation of vascular endothelial growth factors and monocyte chemotactic protein-1. The accumulation of iron is also found to correlate to alcohol consumption which leads to higher levels of peroxidation and resulting oxidative damage.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons also play a role in alcohol-induced carcinogenesis. Exposure occurs through drinking alcohol aged in charred barrels, flavored with peat smoke, or made with roasted grains.

Hormonal regulation
High levels of hormones in serum have been associated with heavy alcohol use. Especially Oesterogen and estradiol which can increase transcriptional activity in ER+ cells which promote cell proliferation. Those in pre-menopause using progestin contraceptives have some compensation for the high levels of estradiol, though after menopause those with heavy alcohol consumption have higher risk for breast cancer and estrogen dependent cancers.

Other mechanisms
Additional mechanisms contribute to cancer risk with alcohol consumption. It is thought that heavy alcohol consumption can cause a decrease in folic acid availability which can decrease the availability of nucleotides for DNA repair. Additionally ethanol can decrease the conversion of homocysteine to methionine which is an essential amino acid that is part of the formation of SAMe.

Increased inflammation due to alcohol consumption can increase various cytokine formations especially NF-κB which is a transcription factor.

Additionally alcohol usage is associated with lower Vitamin A levels which causes a reduction in retinoid conversion and signaling.

Individuals who both smoke and drink are at a much higher risk of developing mouth, tracheal, and esophageal cancer. Ethanol is thought to potentially be a solvent for carcinogenic factors in smoking. Research has shown their risk of developing these cancers is 35 times higher than in individuals who neither smoke nor drink. This evidence may suggest that there is a cocarcinogenic interaction between alcohol and tobacco-related carcinogens.

Local carcinogenic effect of ethanol
The risk of cancer associated with alcohol consumption is higher in tissues in closest contact on ingestion of alcohol, such as the oral cavity, pharynx and esophagus. This is explained by the fact that ethanol is a proven carcinogen and in addition, metabolite of ethanol (acetaldehyde) produced in the liver is highly carcinogenic, thus explaining both local (mouth, throat, esophageal cancers) as well as distant (skin, liver, breast) cancers. It is well known that ethanol causes cell death at the concentrations present in alcoholic beverages. Few cells survive a one-hour exposure to 5–10% ethanol or a 15-second exposure to 30–40% ethanol in cell culture, where surviving cells might undergo genomic changes leading to carcinogenesis. But recent evidence suggests that the cytotoxic effect of ethanol on the cells lining the oral cavity, pharynx and esophagus activates the division of the stem cells located in deeper layers of the mucosa to replace the dead cells.

Every time stem cells divide, they become exposed to unavoidable errors associated with cell division (e.g., mutations arising during DNA replication and chromosomal alterations occurring during mitosis) and also become highly vulnerable to the genotoxic activity of DNA-damaging agents (e.g., acetaldehyde and tobacco carcinogens). Alcohol consumption probably increases the risk of developing cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx and esophagus by promoting the accumulation of cell divisions in the stem cells that maintain these tissues in homeostasis. Because the cytotoxic activity of ethanol is concentration-dependent, the risk of these cancers will not only increase with increasing amounts of ethanol, but also with increasing concentrations; an ounce of whisky is probably more carcinogenic when taken undiluted than when taken mixed with non-alcoholic beverages. The local cytotoxic effect of ethanol may also explain the known synergistic effect of alcohol and tobacco use on the risk of these cancers.

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition
A study found that alcohol stimulates the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), in which ordinary cancer cells change into a more aggressive form and begin to spread throughout the body.

Effect of alcohol on the progress of cancer
A study of the influence of alcohol intake on tumor growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with type C cirrhosis, found that alcohol influenced tumor volume doubling time (TVDT).

A study of chick embryos suggests that alcohol stimulates their tumor growth by fueling the production of a growth factor that stimulates blood vessel development in tumors. A 2006 study in mice showed moderate drinking resulted in larger and stronger tumors via a process known as angiogenesis.

A study where high amounts of alcohol were given to mice suggests that it accelerates their cancer growth by speeding up the loss of body fat and depressing immune activity.

Genetic variation and cancer risk
Since acetaldehyde produced from the metabolism of alcohol plays a role in the carcinogenicity induced by alcohol consumption, mutations in the enzymes involved in the production of acetaldehyde can lead to increased cancer risk. These enzymes included Cytochrome P450 2E1 and alcohol dehydrogenase. A study found that "the ADH1C*1 allele and genotype ADH1C*1/1 were significantly more frequent in patients with alcohol-related cancers…" A European study has found two gene variants which offer "significant" protection against mouth and throat cancers.

Alcohol is a known porphyrinogenic chemical. Several European studies have linked the inherited hepatic porphyrias with a predisposition to hepatocellular carcinoma. Typical risk factors for HCC need not be present with the acute hepatic porphyrias, specifically acute intermittent porphyria, variegate porphyria and hereditary coproporphyria. Porphyria cutanea tarda is also associated with HCC, but with typical risk factors including evidence of hepatotropic viruses, hemochromatosis and alcoholic cirrhosis. Tyrosinemia Type I, an inherited disorder in tyrosine metabolism impacting the second enzyme in the heme metabolic pathway is associated with a high risk of developing HCC in younger populations, including children.

Moderate consumption
A 2022 study from the Seoul National University Hospital, over more than 4.5 million of people, who were screened over 7 years, found that
 * those who increased alcohol consumption had a higher cancer risk (including, but not limited to, alcohol-related cancers) than those who kept the same level of alcohol intake;
 * non-drinkers who became mild drinkers had a risk increase estimated at between 0 and 6 percent (meaning slightly greater risk, not 6 percent risk), while non-drinkers who became "moderate" drinkers had a risk increase estimated between 2 and 18 percent.

The study also had some limitations. For example, the participants were all registered at the South Korean National Health Insurance Service, but the study did not take into account alcohol metabolism diseases which are commonly found in East Asia. The participants were not younger than 40. No data was available to account for positive lifestyle and behaviors held during the screening, that may have influenced the cancer risk, nor for the participants' drinking habits that preceded the screening.

A prior study found that, "Increasing but moderate alcohol consumption in women was determined to be associated with an increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, larynx, rectum, breast, and liver…".

Cancers of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx, and larynx
Alcohol consumption at any quantity is a risk factor for head and neck cancers, such as cancers of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx and larynx.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute states "Drinking alcohol increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx, larynx, and liver in men and women, … In general, risks increases above baseline with any alcohol intake (mild; <2 glass of wine per week) and increases significantly with moderate alcohol intake (one glass of wine per day) with highest risk in those with greater than 7 glasses of wine per week. (A drink is defined as 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof liquor.) … Also, using alcohol with tobacco is riskier than using either one alone, because it further increases the chances of getting cancers of the mouth, throat, and esophagus."

The federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 defines moderate alcohol drinking as up to one drink per day for women and up to two drinks per day for men. Heavy alcohol drinking is defined as having more than three drinks on any day or more than seven drinks per week for women and more than four drinks on any day or more than 14 drinks per week for men.

The International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) Consortium co-ordinated a meta-study on the issue. A study looking at laryngeal cancer and beverage type concluded, "This study thus indicates that in the Italian population characterized by frequent wine consumption, wine is the beverage most strongly related to the risk of laryngeal cancer."

A review of the epidemiological literature published from 1966 to 2006 concluded that:
 * The risk of esophageal cancer nearly doubled in the first two years following alcohol cessation, a sharp increase that may be due to the fact that some people only stop drinking when they are already experiencing disease symptoms. However, risk then decreased rapidly and significantly after longer periods of abstention.
 * Risk of head and neck cancer only reduced significantly after 10 years of cessation.
 * After more than 20 years of alcohol cessation, the risks for both cancers were similar to those seen in people who never drank alcohol.

A study concluded that for every additional drink regularly consumed per day, the incidence of oral cavity and pharynx cancers increases by 1 per 1000. The incidence of cancers of the esophagus and larynx increase by 0.7 per 1000.

A 2008 study suggests that acetaldehyde (a breakdown product of alcohol) is implicated in oral cancer.

Breast cancer

Alcohol is a risk factor for breast cancer in women.

A woman drinking an average of two units of alcohol per day has an 8% higher risk of developing breast cancer than a woman who drinks an average of one unit of alcohol per day. A study concluded that for every additional drink regularly consumed per day, the incidence of breast cancer increases by 11 per 1000. Approximately 6% (between 3.2% and 8.8%) of breast cancers reported in the UK each year could be prevented if drinking was reduced to a very low level (i.e. less than 1 unit/week). Moderate to heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages (at least three to four drinks per week) is associated with a 1.3-fold increased risk of the recurrence of breast cancer. Further, consumption of alcohol at any quantity is associated with significantly increased risk of relapse in breast cancer survivors.

Colorectal cancer
Drinking may be a cause of earlier onset of colorectal cancer. The evidence that alcohol is a cause of bowel cancer is convincing in men and probable in women.

The National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the Mayo Clinic, and the Colorectal Cancer Coalition, American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center list alcohol as a risk factor.

A WCRF panel report finds the evidence "convincing" that alcoholic drinks increase the risk of colorectal cancer in men at consumption levels above 30 grams of absolute alcohol daily. The National Cancer Institute states, "Heavy alcohol use may also increase the risk of colorectal cancer"

A 2011 meta-analysis found that alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Liver cancer
Alcohol is a risk factor for liver cancer, through cirrhosis. "Cirrhosis results from scar formation within the liver, most commonly due to chronic alcohol use."

"Approximately 5 percent of people with cirrhosis develop liver cancer. Cirrhosis is a disease that develops when liver cells are replaced with scar tissue after damage from alcohol abuse, …"

The NIAAA reports that "Prolonged, heavy drinking has been associated in many cases with primary liver cancer." However, it is liver cirrhosis, whether caused by alcohol or another factor, that is thought to induce the cancer."

"The chances of getting liver cancer increase markedly with five or more drinks per day" (NCI).

A study concluded that for every additional drink regularly consumed per day, the incidence of liver cancer increases by 0.7 per 1000.

In the United States, liver cancer is relatively uncommon, affecting approximately 2 people per 100,000, but excessive alcohol consumption is linked to as many as 36% of these cases by some investigators. "Overall, 61% of HCC were attributable to HCV [hepatitis C virus], 13% to HBV [hepatitis B virus], and 18% to heavy alcohol drinking." A study in the province of Brescia, northern Italy concluded, "On the basis of population attributable risks (AR), heavy alcohol intake seems to be the single most relevant cause of HCC in this area (AR: 45%), followed by HCV (AR: 36%), and HBV (AR: 22%) infection."

Lung cancer
Alcohol intake of more than 2 drinks per day is associated with a small increased risk of lung cancer. Commenting on a study by Freudenheim et al., R. Curtis Ellison MD writes, "This study, like others, suggests a weak, positive association between consuming larger amounts of alcohol (>2 drinks a day) and lung cancer risk." However, studies on the relationship between alcohol consumption and lung cancer have yielded conflicting results. Studies are typically impacted by confounding due to factors like smoking which is one of the most significant risk factors for the development of lung cancer. The association of alcohol consumption with lung cancer is unclear.

Skin cancer
Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition (EPIC) cohort indicated a positive association between alcohol consumption and skin cancer. Baseline alcohol intake as well as lifetime alcohol consumption were associated with an increased risk of the development of squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and melanoma in men. There was also an increased risk of these skin cancers in women, but the association wasn't as strong as that seen in men. Any alcohol intake is associated with the development of malignant melanoma.

Stomach cancer
"Statistically significant increases in risk also existed for cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, female breast, and ovaries."

"While alcohol has been extensively studied as a cause of stomach cancer there is no conclusive evidence that it increases risk. However, results from at least three studies suggest that heavy alcohol consumption may increase the risk of stomach cancer in heavy smokers."

A Taiwanese study concluded, "…cigarette smoking may play the most harmful role in the initial development of gastric cancer, and that drinking alcohol may promote the process."

A Norwegian study found that, "No statistically significant associations between various degrees of exposure to alcohol and risk of gastric cancer was revealed, but combined high use of cigarettes (>20/day) and alcohol (>5 occasions/14 days) increased the risk of noncardia gastric cancer nearly 5-fold (HR = 4.90 [95% CI = 1.90–12.62]), compared to nonusers."

Endometrial cancer
Alcohol has been identified as a risk factor for endometrial cancer. Data however, on the association of alcohol intake and endometrial cancer is conflicting. Where data exists for an association low to moderate intake of alcohol, (less than two drinks per day) is not associated with an increased risk but an association has been suggested for higher alcohol intake. "Our results suggest that only alcohol consumption equivalent to 2 or more drinks per day increases risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women." "In conclusion, our results suggest that low alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) is unlikely to substantially influence risk of endometrial cancer."

Gallbladder cancer
Alcohol has been suggested as a risk factor for gallbladder cancer. Evidence suggests that a high intake of alcohol is associated with gallbladder cancer. Men may be at a higher risk of alcohol-related gallbladder cancer than women.

Ovarian cancer
"Thus, the results of this study suggest that relatively elevated alcohol intake (of the order of 40 g per day or more) may cause a modest increase of epithelial ovarian cancer risk.". "Associations were also found between alcohol consumption and cancers of the ovary and prostate, but only for 50 g and 100 g a day." "Statistically significant increases in risk also existed for cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, female breast, and ovaries."

"Thus, this pooled analysis does not provide support for an association between moderate alcohol intake and ovarian cancer risk."

Prostate cancer
"Data from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study showed only a weak association between overall alcohol intake and prostate cancer risk, and no association at all between red wine intake and prostate cancer risk."

A meta-analysis published in 2001 found a small but significant increased risk for men drinking more than 50 g/day of alcohol, with a slightly higher risk for men consuming more than 100 g/day. Since that analysis, cohort studies in America have found increased risks for men drinking moderate amounts of spirits, and for 'binge drinkers, but moderate consumption of beer or wine has not been linked to an increased risk.

Alcohol consumption of 50 g and 100 g per day is also associated with cancers of the ovary and prostate. However, one study concludes, that moderate alcohol consumption increases the risk of prostate cancer. Liquor, but not wine or beer, consumption was positively associated with prostate cancer."

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that men who consumed four or more glasses of red wine per week had a 50 percent reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer. They "found no significant effects – positive nor negative – associated with the consumption of beer or hard liquor and no consistent risk reduction with white wine, which suggests that there must be a beneficial compound in red wine that other types of alcohol lack. That compound … may be an antioxidant called resveratrol, which is abundant in the skins of red grapes.".

A meta analysis of studies published in 2009 found that consumption of only 2 standard drinks per day increased the cancer risk by 20%.

Small intestine cancer

A study of small intestine cancer patients reported that alcohol consumption was associated with adenocarcinomas and malignant carcinoid tumors.

"In men and women combined, a significant 3-fold increased risk in heavy drinkers (80+g ethanol/day) relative to more moderate drinkers and non-drinkers was observed."

"Alcohol and tobacco consumption did not increase the risk of adenocarcinoma of the small intestine. … While the present data are inconsistent with a major effect of tobacco or alcohol, a moderate association between these factors and small bowel cancer may have been obscured by the play of chance."

Leukemia
Intake of alcohol during pregnancy has been associated with childhood leukemia. A review published by the National Cancer Institute placed maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy in the category of "suggestive" but concluded that the risk was not important.

For ALL in children, maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy is "unlikely to be an important risk factor for ALL"
 * Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)

 * Acute myeloid leukemia (AML)

A study concluded, "In conclusion, even though our study did not show a clear association between alcohol intake and leukemia risk, some of the patterns of the risk estimates (a possible J-shaped dose-response curve between alcohol intake and ALL, AML, and CLL risks, and the positive association between alcohol and CML), may be suggestive."

"Three studies have reported an increased risk (approximately 1.5-2 fold) in mothers who drank alcoholic beverages during pregnancy. These associations have been particularly apparent in children diagnosed younger than three years of age.". "Maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy increases the risk of infant leukemia, especially AML."
 * Childhood AML

A study found that intrauterine exposure to alcohol doubled the risk for childhood ANLL.
 * Acute non-lymphocytic leukemia (ANLL)

 * Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

A study concluded, "In conclusion, even though our study did not show a clear association between alcohol intake and leukemia risk, some of the patterns of the risk estimates (a possible J-shaped dose-response curve between alcohol intake and ALL, AML, and CLL risks, and the positive association between alcohol and CML), may be suggestive."

 * Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)

A population-based case-control study in Italy found a non-significant positive association between drinking and CML.

 * Hairy cell leukemia

A study concluded, "There was no association found for cigarette smoking, alcohol or coffee consumption and hairy cell leukemia."

Multiple myeloma (MM )
Alcohol has been suggested as a possible cause of multiple myeloma, although a study found no association between MM in a comparison study between drinkers and non-drinkers.

Pancreatic cancer
Whilst the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established the association between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer is less clear. Overall the evidence suggests a slightly increased risk of pancreatic cancer with chronic heavy alcohol consumption but the evidence remains conflicting with a number of studies finding no association., but no increased risk for people consuming up to 30g of alcohol a day

Overall, the association is consistently weak and the majority of studies have found no association. Although drinking alcohol excessively is a major cause of chronic pancreatitis, which in turn predisposes to pancreatic cancer, chronic pancreatitis associated with alcohol consumption is less frequently a precursor for pancreatic cancer than other types of chronic pancreatitis.

Some studies suggest a relationship, the risk increasing with increasing amount of alcohol intake. The risk is greatest in heavy drinkers, mostly on the order of four or more drinks per day. There appears to be no increased risk for people consuming up to 30g of alcohol a day, which is approximately 2 alcoholic beverages/day, so most people who take alcohol do so at a level that "is probably not a risk factor for pancreatic cancer". A pooled analysis concluded, "Our findings are consistent with a modest increase in risk of pancreatic cancer with consumption of 30 or more grams of alcohol per day".

Several studies caution that their findings could be due to confounding factors. Even if a link exists, it "could be due to the contents of some alcoholic beverages" other than the alcohol itself. One Dutch study even found that drinkers of white wine had lower risk.

"About 7 out of 10 cases of chronic pancreatitis are due to long term heavy drinking. Chronic pancreatitis is a known risk factor for cancer of the pancreas. But chronic pancreatitis that is due to alcohol doesn't increase risk as much as other types of chronic pancreatitis. So if there is a link with alcohol and pancreatic cancer risk, it is only very slight."

"Our findings indicate that alcohol drinking at the levels typically consumed by the general population of the United States is probably not a risk factor for pancreatic cancer. Our data suggest, however, that heavy alcohol drinking may be related to pancreatic cancer risk."

"Relative risks of pancreatic cancer increased with the amount of alcohol consumed (Ptrend = 0.11) after adjustment for age, smoking status, and pack-years of smoking."

"Alcoholics had only a modest 40% excess risk of pancreatic cancer … The excess risk for pancreatic cancer among alcoholics is small and could conceivably be attributed to confounding by smoking."

"It was shown that the relative risk of cancer of the pancreas increases with fat and alcohol intakes, … Alcohol may be not directly involved in the aetiology of cancer of the pancreas: its effect could be due to the contents of some alcoholic beverages."

"When compared with data from non-drinkers, the cumulative lifetime consumption of all types of alcohol in grams of ethanol… beer, spirits, red wine and fortified wine was not related to risk. The consumption of white wine was inversely associated with risk…. The uniformly reduced risk estimates for the lifetime number of drinks of white wine were based on small numbers…."

"For the most part, consumption of total alcohol, wine, liquor and beer was not associated with pancreatic cancer."

"Data from these two large cohorts do not support any overall association between coffee intake or alcohol intake and risk of pancreatic cancer."

"Our findings are consistent with a modest increase in risk of pancreatic cancer with consumption of 30 or more grams of alcohol per day."

Not suspected to increase risk
This section lists cancers where alcohol is not listed as a risk factor and where papers have been published.

Childhood astrocytoma
A study concluded that foetal exposure to alcohol is not associated with childhood astrocytoma.

Bile duct cancer
A review of the literature found that there is no association between alcohol use and bile duct cancer.

Bladder cancer
"Epidemiological data on alcohol drinking and bladder cancer are suggestive of no association, although findings were not always consistent. For both habits, an explanation of the moderate increase in risk observed in some investigations might be attributed to residual confounding by smoking, or to an association between alcohol, coffee, and yet unidentified risk factors for bladder cancer."

Cervical cancer
A study concluded "that alcoholic women are at high risk for in situ and invasive cervical cancer" but attributed this to indirect, lifestyle-related reasons.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer
"DCIS patients and control subjects did not differ with respect to oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy, alcohol consumption or smoking history, or breast self-examination. Associations for LCIS were similar."

Ependymoma
A review of the basic literature found that consumption of beer was associated with increased risk in one study but not in another

Intraocular and uveal melanomas
A study found no association between alcohol and uveal melanoma.

Nasopharynageal cancer / Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)
A systematic review found evidence that light drinking may decrease the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma whereas high intake of alcohol may increase the risk.

Neuroblastoma
A few studies have indicated an increased risk of neuroblastoma with use of alcohol during pregnancy.

Salivary gland cancer (SGC)
Alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of salivary gland cancer.

Testicular cancer
A review concluded that "There is no firm evidence of a causal relation between behavior risks [tobacco, alcohol and diet] and testicular cancer."

Thyroid cancer
A 2009 review found that alcohol intake does not affect the risk of developing thyroid cancer. However, a 2009 study of 490,000 men and women concluded that alcohol may reduce the risk of thyroid cancer. A 2009 study of 1,280,296 women in the United Kingdom concluded, "The decreased risk for thyroid cancer that we find to be associated with alcohol intake is consistent with results from some studies, although a meta-analysis of 10 case–control studies and two other cohort studies reported no statistically significant associations."

Vaginal cancer
A Danish study found that "Abstinence from alcohol consumption was associated with low risk for both VV-SCCvagina and VV-SCCvulva in our study."

A study concluded that alcoholic women are at high risk for cancer of the vagina. In both studies, indirect, lifestyle-related reasons were cited.

Vulvar cancer
One study reported "No consistent association emerged between milk, meat, liver, alcohol and coffee consumption and risk of vulvar cancer." A Danish study found the reverse, that alcohol consumption is significantly associated with VV-SCCvagina and VV-SCCvulva cancer. A Swedish study concluded that alcoholic women are at no higher risk for cancer of the vulva.

Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL)
A study concluded, "The results of this large-scale European study … suggested a protective effect of alcohol on development of NHL for men and in non-Mediterranean countries." A population based case-control study in Germany found that alcohol reduced the risk of HL for both men and women but more so for men, whose risk was lowered by 53%.

A population-based case-control study in Italy reported a protective effect of alcohol consumption on risk of HL among non-smokers. Analysis of data from a series of case-control studies in Northern Italy revealed a modest positive effect of alcohol on lowering risk of HL among both smokers and non-smokers.

A study considering more than 1 million American women found that increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with a decreased risk of Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Kidney cancer (Renal cell carcinoma) (RCC)
"Moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of renal cell cancer among both women and men in this pooled analysis" "This pooled analysis found an inverse association between alcohol drinking and RCC. Risks continued to decrease even above eight drinks per day (i.e. >100 g/day) of alcohol intake, with no apparent levelling in risk."

A study concluded, "Results from our prospective cohort study of middle-aged and elderly women indicate that moderate alcohol consumption may be associated with decreased risk of RCC." Researchers who conducted a study in Iowa reported that "In this population-based case-control investigation, we report further evidence that alcohol consumption decreases the risk of RCC among women but not among men. Our ability to show that the association remains after multivariate adjustment for several new confounding factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, and family history) strengthens support for a true association.

Another study found no relationship between alcohol consumption and risk of kidney cancer among either men or women.

A Finnish study concluded, "These data suggest that alcohol consumption is associated with decreased risk of RCC in male smokers. Because most of the risk reductions were seen at the highest quartile of alcohol intake and alcohol is a risk factor for a number of cancers particularly among smokers, these data should be interpreted with caution." "Our data suggest an inverse association between alcohol intake and risk of renal cell cancer…" Compared with nondrinkers, men who drank one or more drinks per day had a 31% lower risk of kidney cancer among 161,126 Hawaii-Los Angeles Multiethnic Cohort participants.

A study considering more than 1 million American women found that increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with a decreased risk of renal cancer.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
A study concluded, "People who drink alcoholic beverages might have a lower risk of NHL than those who do not, and this risk might vary by NHL subtype." "Compared with nondrinkers, alcohol consumers had a lower risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma overall … and for its main subtypes." A study concluded, "Nonusers of alcohol had an elevated NHL risk compared with users…"

Some studies have found a protective effect on NHL of drinking some forms of alcoholic beverage or in some demographic groups. A study of men in the US found that consumption of wine, but not beer or spirits, was associated with a reduced NHL risk and a large European study found a protective effect of alcohol among men and in non-Mediterranean countries.." A study of older women in Iowa found alcohol to reduce the risk of NHL and the amount of alcohol consumed, rather than the type of alcoholic beverages, appeared to be the main determinant in reducing risk." A possible mechanism has been suggested.

Some studies have not found a protective effect from drinking. British research found no association between frequency of drinking and NHL and research in Sweden found that total beer, wine, or liquor intake was not associated with any major subtype of NHL examined, apart from an association between high wine consumption and increased risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.."

One study of NHL patients concluded, "Our findings strongly encourage physicians to advise NHL patients to stop smoking and diminish alcohol consumption to obtain improvements in the course of NHL."

A study considering more than 1 million American women found that increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with a decreased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Recommended maximum alcohol intake
As outlined above, there is no recommended alcohol intake with respect to cancer risk alone as it varies with each individual cancer. See Recommended maximum intake of alcoholic beverages for a list of governments' guidances on alcohol intake which, for a healthy man, range from 140–280g per week.

One meta-analysis suggests that risks of cancers may start below the recommended levels. "Risk increased significantly for drinkers, compared with non-drinkers, beginning at an intake of 25 g (< 2 standard drinks) per day for the following: cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx (relative risk, RR, 1.9), esophagus (RR 1.4), larynx (RR 1.4), breast (RR 1.3), liver (RR 1.2), colon (RR 1.1), and rectum (RR 1.1)"

World Cancer Research Fund recommends that people aim to limit consumption to less than two drinks a day for a man and less than one drink a day for a woman. It defines a "drink" as containing about 10–15 grams of ethanol.

Alcohol industry manipulation of the science on alcohol and cancer
A study published in 2017 has found that front organisations set up by the world's leading alcohol companies are actively misleading the public about the risk of cancer due to alcohol consumption. The study drew parallels with the long-standing activities of the tobacco industry. It also claimed that there was a particular focus on misleading women drinkers, because much of the misinformation about cancer produced by these companies was found to be focused on breast cancer.

The alcohol industry around the world has also campaigned to remove laws that require alcoholic beverages to have cancer warning labels.

A 2019 survey conducted by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) showed that only 45% of Americans were aware of the associated risk of cancer due to alcohol consumption, up from 39% in 2017. The AICR believes that alcohol-related advertisements about the healthy cardiovascular benefits of modest alcohol overshadow messages about the increased cancer risks.

title: Alcohol and cancer