Talk:Prohibition
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Dry Towns
I live in a "dry" town in Louisiana. They sell beer, but no other alcoholic beverages. Can someone explain that one for me. I always assumed that dry ment none.
- It's a grey area. Some places pressed for full banning of anything even close to alcoholic, while others for banning of only strong liquor (wine, spirits, whiskey, etc.). The official rules were a bit clearer than that, but I forget what they said at the moment... Master Thief Garrett 06:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mafia lobby
Is idea that prohibition laws were caused by Mafia lobby considered not neutral point of view?
- Unless there is a source for the information, it'd be considered original research. The conventional view is that the Mafia became a powerful force in the U.S. as a result of Prohibition. I've never heard of anyone saying that they helped pass it. But if you have a source that says so, then I'm sure we can add a note about it. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Prank
Someone changed the word "prohibition" to "prohibishon" in this article.—preceding unsigned comment by 67.98.18.66 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC+11 hours)
Six Million Dollars
Says the article: "It had been estimated that six million dollars would be needed to enforce prohibition laws" I'm guessing that that's $6M of the time - but I don't like having to guess, and I don't know for sure. Any chance of someone who does know either changing that to $USxx million 200x or $US6 million at 19xx rates.
legal term ignored
The legal term prohibition is ignored in this article. It should likely have it's own page. See Canadian administrative law section on sources of law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_administrative_law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.52.159 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do the links at the very top of the article not point to any of that? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 27 December 2024
– Prohibition is an ambiguous term KOLANO12 3 18:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Primary meaning. THOUSANGDS!! of wikilinks. --Altenmann >talk 18:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at some stats. WikiNav for November shows the hatnote at #2, but at only 162 identifiable clickstreams. There are 1751 filtered clickstreams, which is a tad suspect, but not horrible given overall 4k identifiable total, and the biggest chunk of that is the US article, which is a well-known historical topic. This article is already phrased rather generically, and there's no particular indication that it's not generic enough, so I don't think #2 should be done, unless you can present a more coherent rationale.
- Proposal #1 seems fine, though. It would turn just the more ambiguous word "prohibition" into a primary redirect, which is much easier to gather measurements about in our system. --Joy (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, prohibition is understood to be both the name of the era (major enough to encompass two U.S. constitutional amendments) and the prohibition of alcohol. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Prohibition is an ambiguous term but there is an assumed primary topic, and no evidence presented that it isn't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)