Archive 1

Someone did an interesting edit to the Ku Klux Klan article today regarding its temperance activities. Although I reverted the edit because there were a lot of problems with it, I assume there is at least some truth to the claim that the Klan was heavily involved in temperance and prohibition.--Bcrowell 03:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC) The "kieltolaki" link in the introduction links to the Finnish-language edition of Wikipedia. Sort of silly.—preceding unsigned comment by 195.148.0.59 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC+11 hours)

especially in the US, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the bringing in of prohibition in this article. Does anyone know anything about it?

I agree there should be something more here about it. The best Wikipedia place to look for answers before then though is Temperance movement. matturn 13:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The globalise tag was added by User:AzaToth on 8 December with the comment "The US specifc should not have a such prominent placing." I disagree. The most famous and discussed case of Prohibition is the US 20th century example, not least because it was the view of a minority imposing against cultural norms of the rest of society. The article covers a wide range of global examples. If more discussion is required, for example about Scandinavian countries, they should be added but the globalisation tag is inappropriate given the coverage of Australia, Canada and Muslim majority countries. I do not have the knowledge to add the Scandinavian experience, if any; I understand the sale of alcohol is restricted, I don't know if it is prohibited. I will allow time for discussion before removing the tag--A Y Arktos 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Scandanavia, with the exception of Denmark, has had a long temperance tradition. Prohibition existed in Iceland from 1919 to 1932 and in Finland during the same period. Norway, for example, still has an active and apparently influential prohibition party. Scandanavian countries today, with the exception of Denmark, are characterized by neo-prohibitionism. Russia also imposed prohibition briefly, (1916-1917). Nevertheless, I agree that the globalize tag is unnecessary.David Justin 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Incidentally, it's not entirely clear that a minority imposed its will on the American public to bring about Prohibition. True, Prohibitionists were guilty of widespread deception, including leaders like Wayne Wheeler, William E. Johnson, Mary Hunt, and many others. On the other hand, many states had established prohibition at the state level long before the country did so nation-wide. Of course, we know from documentary evidence that some politicians were fooled into believing that many more people supported prohibition than really did. (Public opinion polls were unknown.) And many people, including politicians, probably believed that prohibition was good for other people but not themselves. This is a fascinating question about which people will argue for decades to come. [1] David Justin 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We have several different sources for Russian dates of Prohibition in WW1. A source for the 1916-1917 date is: Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. Drinks, Drinkers and Drinking. In Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. (Eds.) Drinking Alcohol in American Society - Issues and Current Research. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1976, pp. 5-30. There are a number of sources, however, for 1914 - 1924. A (cached) reference for Russian prohibition from a site calling itself The Moscow News. Within it is an article on 'Perestroika 1985 - 1991', by Sergei Roy sub-titled 'COLLOQUIAL CHRONICLE' with a section: 1.09. The Vodka Mess (1)

Campaigns against drinking were not as old as drinking itself, but old enough - as old as they were hopeless. The Russian Orthodox Church did most of the campaigning. ....

The first state-initiated attempt at prohibition in Russia was made in 1914, at the outbreak of the Great War. The blessings that came from the move were dubious: The people simply switched from kazyonnaya ("treasury") vodka, that is, vodka sold under state monopoly, to homemade samogon, lit. "self-distilled," or to drinking in what Americans would later dub speakeasies. Another unpleasant consequence of the sukhoy zakon "dry law" was the spread of drug addiction, especially cocaine sniffing, so that some authors with a flair for flamboyant historical explanations have insisted even that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was carried out entirely by cocaine-sniffing Baltic Fleet seamen. Actually, there may be something in it.

Anyway, sukhoy zakon held in Russia until Stalin decided that he had to have money to industrialize Russia if he wanted state-of-the-art weapons and equipment for his armed forces - his only defense against a hostile capitalist environment, in view of the failure of the world revolution to materialize. So he abolished the "dry law" and proceeded to build up what later came to be known as pyany byudzhet "drunken budget," extracting capital from state monopoly on alcohol.

From a review in the International Association of Labour History Institutions news service of a 1999 book by C. S. Walton, Ivan Petrov: Russia Through a Shot Glass.

Alcohol's role in 1917 and 1991 go deeper than the relative sobriety of the victorious leaders. Nicholas II's precipitous decision in July 1914 to extend prohibition beyond mobilization -- and thereby deprive his government of a quarter of its annual revenues -- was the first spur to the galloping inflation that would eventually help bring down his regime. And the spread of samogon (moonshine) production in the Russian countryside during World War I gave peasants the means to hold onto their grain surpluses and sever the cities' food lifeline.

The review does not really deal with this period but the reviewer mentions it in the introduction and apparently has written an article on the subject. At Alcohol and Drugs History Society there is mention of, but no link to, an article by David Christian, "Prohibition in Russia, 1914-1925," Australian Slavonic and East European Studies 9/2 (1995): 89-118.

This article gives the dates as 1914 - 1924 - imposed by the czar and lifted by the bolsheviks. Similarly this article talks about imposition by the tsar in 1914. Also this review states:

When war broke out in 1914, Nicholas II decreed a ban on alcohol sales for the duration of the war, a measure that proved suicidal for him and Russia's war effort by depriving the state of more than a quarter of its revenue.

I think on the basis of a number of sources the dates for Russia should be 1914 - 24.--A Y Arktos 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In the case of :When the ship, Washington, was launched, a bottle of water rather than tradional champagne or wine, was ceremoniously broken across her bow. Was this the USS Washington (BB-47) launched in 1921?--A Y Arktos 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC) That would appear to be the ship, although I need to confirm it. My reference was Behr, E. Prohibition. New York: Arcade, 1996. Will when I can get to the library.David Justin 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Added template on progressivism series. --Northmeister 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed to "Alcohol Prohibition" because there are many other forms of drug prohibitions. Zachorious 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the standard term. Any other term would seriously confuse Wiki users. Rjensen 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that it can succeed if we brought it back.--72.65.232.88 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Only in Utah, my friend. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a very large literature on the connections between prohibition, religion, and reform movements. It was not "strange." The fundamentalist Protestants were only marginally involved--Prohibition was pushed mostly by the mainline Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Disciples, Presbyterians and Congregationalists (as well as the , Southern Baptists and Scandinavian Lutherans). They had multiple goals (see Social Gospel) Rjensen 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Kennedy's father made the Kennedy family fortune bringing alcohol into the United States during the years of prohibition there. Perhaps this should be in this article. --McDogm 13:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? That's a sordid little detail... well, it makes sense, how *else* do you get rich when you're not an old established family? heheheh... but maybe save that up for a "noteworthy bootleggers" section. There's also conflicting stories of brewers (and some unrelated people too) that each "created" the term "the real McCoy", so those two brewers would similarly be worthy of mention. But I'd have to read up on it a bit more... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

the story about the Kennedy family during prohibition is not true, according to the biographers. There were no illegal activities involved. (Kennedy bought rights to import Scotch before prohibition ended but did not bring in any until it was 100% legal to do so.) Rjensen 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Any such addition would of course have to be covered by a citation of a reliable source--Arktos ^talk 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I call a foul on the editing of this article, and it appears to me that the editors of several related articles have their own agenda and are not being "neutral". I could give many examples, and have in other articles on related topics, but let's just take this one. I posted the links to the prohibition results page as well as the links to the Wickersham Commission Report and the transcripts of the Senate Judiciary committee hearings of 1926. All three were labeled "POV". Apparently, the editor didn't look at them well enough to tell what they were. On the prohibition results page a POV warning is perfectly fair because that is one person's collection of relevant quotes and info. However, the Wickersham Commission Report is the OFFICIAL US government report on alcohol prohibition. The Senate Judiciary committee hearings are (why do I even have to explain this to "editors"?) the transcripts of congressional hearings. You know, the same as other transcripts of congressional hearings that have been linked for years on Wikipedia without a POV warning. In both cases, the books are presented in full text (or as much as I could manage) without editing or editorial comment. They are the same books you would find in any good university research library - which is where I found them. In addition, let me state that I have never seen any occasion on which a POV warning has been placed on any US Government link on these topics. If anyone thinks the US Government doesn't have a POV on these issues then, quite frankly, they don't know enough about the subject to edit it. The US Government has had an official, and openly stated, policy of lying about drugs, prohibition, and related topics since at least 1925. That's not my opinion. I can give you the references. So how about some changes here? How about removing the POV warning from places it doesn't belong, and how about placing a POV warning on a few more of the US Goverment links? I would like to get these poor editing problems resolved because there are many things that could be expanded, corrected, or improved in these articles and, at the moment, the editing leaves much to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 August 2006

The POV rules apply to Wiki editors. They do NOT apply to original sources--practically all of which support one position or another. So I removed the POV tags. Rjensen 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. To me it indicates that some of your editors have an agenda. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 August 2006

Why are we dealing just with Alcohol here? "prohibition" in India was when Hash was (And still is) banned, ditto Pakistan. Expand the scope methinks. I'm aware of the prohibition on drugs article, but, still. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I came to this page seeking information about prohibition movements in general, specifically regarding late-1800s activism against cannabis (marijuana). I imagine other "prohibitions" might be spurred from the WP page titled "Prohibition". Thoughts? (Sorry I don't know enough about WP standards to feel adequate to the decision or task myself.) --tgeller 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Prohibition article should be about drug prohibition in general, including alcohol. Then a separate article should be named alcohol prohibition. It's important that people understand that: 1) alcohol is just another drug 2) we live under prohibition right now

The USA section dominates both the Prohibition page and the Temperance movement page. Instead of the proposed merger, perhaps USA should have its own Prohibition/temperance page, so it won't dominate the other two. -The Gomm 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gomm has a good idea: a separate Prohibition in US page Rjensen 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, however I think it's the rest of the world stuff that should be separated out. Prohibition as a word in this sense is mainly linked to the US Prohibition and most people searching for it will want info on that. So if anything is being split out it should be the rest into it's own page, not the US stuff. Ben W Bell talk 06:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, good point, but what would be the term for prohibition in the rest of the world? How will somebody interested in non-US prohibition search for that material? -The Gomm 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel the need to split it out then how about just "Prohibition outside the United States", "Prohibition (rest of world)" or "Alcohol prohibition" with the later one having a disambig link at the top pointing back to the main US Prohibition article. Ben W Bell talk 06:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone agreed on splitting the article. Perhaps the easiest way is to have two articles, (which will link to each other). Suggested titles:

1. Prohibition in the United States
2. Prohibition in the World

--any objections?? Rjensen 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the second article title. Rather I suggest moving out the US content into a separate article and leaving a reference to it in the Prohibition (this) article with {{main|location}}
links talk  --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok we now have two articles, Prohibition and Prohibition in the United States Rjensen 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated above. Read the first paragraph of the article entry for evidence. Loaded language and an agenda. It is possible to make this more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.198.234 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 September 2006

good point and I just deleted the junk POV. Rjensen 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a piece of ethnocentric propaganda! It should be rewritten in context with the global prohibition of drugs. Also, the prohibition of non-alcoholic drugs is historically connected with the prohibition of alcohol in the US. Anti-drug agents were recruited from the Prohibition agents and sent against mexicans, chinese or black people with the pretext of whatever drug different from alcohol they could use. That´s world history. Stop spoiling the wikipedia with American ethnocentrism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 September 2006

No this article is already global, and deals specifically with the prohibition of Alcohol around the world. It can't get any more global, and only deals with alcohol. Ben W Bell talk 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then the article is badly named. Its correct name should be Alcohol Prohibition, or Prohibition (Alcohol). The term prohibition in the sense of alcohol prohibition is an ethnocentric bias from an american chauvinistic point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 September 2006

I agree with Ben B Bell. Just a couple days ago we removed nearly all the American material (leaving just a short summary). One suspects our anonymous critic has a strong POV regarding future drug policy and could care less about the topics actually covered here. Rjensen 06:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Prohibition is a term related in the public psyche to the period in US history where alcohol was prohibited. The vast majority of people who come to Wikipedia and enter Prohibition are expecting to see that kind of article come up by default. Ben W Bell talk 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So you speak as the representantive of "the vast majority of people who come to Wikipedia", whose thought and expectations you think to know best. Please! Then, I insist, the article dealing with global issues should be called Alcohol Prohibition and not the americanism Bell demonstrates. Drcaldev 06:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I represent no Americanism (whatever that is) whatsoever. This is an article that has been here for years and the name Prohibition is heavily associated, other than the dictionary definition which has no place on Wikipedia, with the period of US history from 1920 to 1933. This is a worldwide association. Ben W Bell talk 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I explain: an americanism is a localism. Such as when you say prohibition and think "everybody" understands it the way some american fellows do. Shouldn´t the wikipedia have its articles named coherently with the definitions given to the words in the dictionary? The article should be called Prohibition (Alcohol) and Prohibition could redirect there, for the vast majority of readers that Bell thinks would be confused by learning new information, that is: that Prohibition is not what the government had taught us. You can create an article about the "public psyche" whose thoughts you say you read. Drcaldev 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this article is about a set of historical events named by historians as Prohibition. If you wish to start an article Prohibition (drugs) then by all means feel free to do so. Wikipedia has a first come policy on this sort of thing, and the historical article got the Prohibition name first. Ben W Bell talk 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think if you didn´t know there is already an article called Prohibition (drugs) (by the way a much better one than the one you are keeping me from improving a little) you demonstrate YOU DON´T KNOW A THING ABOUT PROHIBITON, DRUGS OR WHATEVER. ALCOHOL IS A DRUG, IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT TO GET? So why don´t you stop reverting like a stubborn policeman or whatever you like to play of, and let people who know a little about the stuff help!!?? Drcaldev 07:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC) How come a person so ignorant of the wikipedia manages to get power to stop it from improving???? And messes with articles he doesn´t know a bit of?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 September 2006

Please calm down and read the article No Personal Attacks. And actually my interest in history is the world of the 1920s, which means I know a lot about Prohibition (with a capital P), the historical period to which this article pertains. As you can see this article is about historical periods where alcohol has been prohibited. It is not an article about how the US supposedly enforces it's drugs laws on everyone. It is not about how some feel drugs should be legalised, decriminalised or whatever and it is not about the oppression of global drugs by and for pharmaceutical companies to stymy their competitors. Ben W Bell talk 08:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you are an expert in the 1920´s, and american prohibition of alcoholic beverages and all. Great. Perhaps the problem is there. For the article could take into consideration the historical context of the fact, that you say you know (even you act like don´t) the historical fact of the relationship between that Prohibition (you think as the One and Only Forever) and Prohibition of Drugs, in general, alcoholic or not, which is a more enciclopedic point-of-view. But the article, in its present form, seems to treat the topic in isolation, out of very important context. In that respect, the article seemed to me a localistic curiosity, which should be properly called Prohibition (Alcohol) in order to teach something new to your "public psyche" and not only what they already think they know. (And you with them). Anyway, this dispute seems to be over sources, mainly. Drcaldev 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol is a drug. Therefore I request the merging of Prohibition as Prohibition of Alcohol into the Prohibition (drugs) article. Drcaldev 08:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request away, if others feel that way then fine. As it stands though the article isn't about the general prohibition of alcohol and drugs, but historical period of time where they have been prohibited and the effects this has had. True the article does in fact mention drugs as well so it stands to reason it can have information on the specific periods where drugs were prohibited, however the impact is a little more complicated than the blanket alcohol bans labelled as Prohibition. Saying that cocaine is illegal in Bolivia from 19xx or the like seems to go against the grain of the article as it stands. But lets see what others have to say on the matter. Ben W Bell talk 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And please, read Prohibition (drugs), it will expand your claimed knowledge of the subject. Drcaldev 08:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Very useful too would be Antonomasia.

• Oppose proposed merger and/or rename - as per Ben W Bell, prohibition is a term related in the public psyche to the prohibition of alcohol and needs no further disambiguation - the article covers world-wide experiences - can be improved still but ... don't see the need for changes proposed by User:Drcaldev --Golden Wattle ^talk 08:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose alcohol is a drug is a POV theme that distorts the encyclopedia. Rjensen 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The above comment constitutes genuine POV by its author. That should void his vote, because it shows bad faith: voting on issues he hasn´t even read about!!!

The fact that alcohol is a drug is undenieable on pharmacological grounds. It is actually the second most addictive, the only brain damaging, drug. Those who want to believe propaganda that promotes alcoholism by saying is not a drug, beware! You´re being cheated into the only truly dementiating drug addiction. If you already drink alcohol regularly, you are a drug addict by definition, with the added risk of using the most common drug agent responsible for inducing acquired mental retardation or dementia. It´s hard. But it´s true. Please don´t term or try to discuss hard facts (such as alcohol being a drug) POV, because that is actually evident and self-confessed POV. I think the assertion "alcohol is not a drug" should be enough to ban those persons from editing drug related articles. Such intent is proper vandalism. If you don´t know the most basic facts, don´t mess with it. How´s that called? "Bigotry" Drcaldev 06:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Those votes obviously obtained with pressure of Ben Bell on users unaware of the discussion should be void. People are being pushed to vote without information on the issue. That´s more vandalism by Ben Bell!!! He knows better of aircrafts, bombs and that stuff. Why mess with drugs? Drcaldev 06:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me what on earth are you talking about? Why do I know more about bombs and stuff? If you'd like to check you'll find I've contacted absolutely no one on this topic and every comment on it is made plain on this page. If you do not stop with the personal attacks then unfortunately you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are the one who begun since your first comment with personal attacks and that´s already demonstrated. You are just provoking a discussion on topics you and your friends ignore, but are very POV about. Stop doing that. This is not tha Hawkypedia. You are being POV and you are the personal attacker on first place. I´m defending a good faith contribution from persistent vandalism by uninformed organized editors. Drcaldev 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) And you know "what on earth" I´m talking about: you create articles on aircraft and weapons and stuff like that. Then you come here pretending to know everything about what you call " the prohibition" around your town, then asking for deleting articles, while showing complete ignorance of even the fact that there exists an article named Prohibition (drugs). So I´m talking about you creating articles on aircrafts, and fighting true vandalism, doesn´t give you rights to delete and discuss articles you don´t know a bit about. Non sequitur. If you say alcohol is not a drug, it´s enough: you demonstrate the worthlessness of your opinions on those matters. You can´t apply the same militar/conservative values to every issue on wikipedia, even if you are a wikipoliceman or something. Drcaldev 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not garble the issue. Prohobition was a political/social movement in many countries focues on the social and economic costs produced by drinking--with closely related issues of crime, ethnicity, saloon power, religious moralism, police power, personal liberty and many other issues. The medical question of its drug-effects on the human body was a minor dimension of the debate--please read some of the books!--and that is why the topic is separate. Rjensen 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever created an article on a weapon or bomb on Wikipedia, or ever denied that alcohol is a drug. You must have me confused with someone else, it seems to be common. Ben W Bell talk 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember physicians were allowed to prescribe alcoholic beverages during your prohibition? Remember the American Medical Association had to complain because covered prohibition agents had already blackmailed or jailed a lot of doctors for being indulgent with wine and whiskey prescriptions.... Again that´s already mentioned in Prohibtion (drugs). Perhaps Prohibition should merge with United States history, if is not about the broad sociological phenomena of prohibtion of certain drugs (such as alcohol). Drcaldev 07:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No this article is about the periods of history generally called Probihition. Ben W Bell talk 07:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Prohibition" for "The Prohibition of production, trade and consumption of Alcoholic Drugs in the United States from 1919 to 1933" constitutes an instance of the rethoric figure called synecdoche (not antonomasia, as Ben Bell correctly pointed out). Drcaldev 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not an American localism. It is an accepted term in use by historians across the world for these periods. Ben W Bell talk 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Localism? well no.... The term "prohibition" is standard in Canada for example. (proof: [2] and was widely used for Europe [[3] and in England [4] and [5] Rjensen 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ad populum. I don´t really see "historians all across the world" (unless you are using "world" for "the United States of America" as when you say World Series) confusing a concrete local historical event with a global defined term that means the action and effect of prohibiting anything (such as books or pornography, hence connection with censorship). I think history of the United States is very important, but can´t substitute a global point of view. Historians around non-american World refer to it as Prohibition of Alcohol in the US at the beginning of 20th century, or something like that. Any way, even giving to you that some historians in some books use that synecdochic meaning, that´s not an argument for avoiding precision in Wikipedia. Prohibition is almost a self-explaining word, famouse uses should be pointed out as that, explicitly, and not assuming everybody fetches old meanings of the words. In other words, you are giving for current a historical conception of Prohibitions, which is outdated. Nowadays Prohibition means Prohibition. In the 1930´s it could not because ignorance was bigger and one could say alcohol was not a drug, as Rjensen still says. If we know better now, why sticking to old loaded feelings? Drcaldev 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictonary. The Prohibition page was created to provide information on historical periods concerning the prohibition of alcohol which have generally been name Prohibition by both historians and people living at the time of such prohibitions. It isn't being used in this article as a more general term of prohibition, but that of these historical periods. A page defining prohibition has no place on Wikipedia, maybe on Wictionary. Wikipedia uses it in this sense, if you're not happy with it and want to be able to have a page where you can criticise the current legalities and moral issues of the US government not letting it's citizens use cocaine and the like then you're in the wrong place. Ben W Bell talk 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are very wrong here. To historians (and everyone else) in the English-speaking world (and you will note that neither I nor Ben W Bell are American), "Prohibition" without a qualifier always means the Prohibition in the USA from 1919 to 1933. It is the most famous Prohibition by far outside its country of origin. It is not used by "some historians in some books", but by all historians in all books on the subject. The fact that you don't agree that the term should be used is irrelevant to its actual usage by the majority of the population of the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)-- Necrothesp 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A search for "Prohibition of Alcohol in the United States" returns 1190 hits in google. Is a common and more precise term. Prohibition in your outdated terminology is just a synecdoche, very popular one, indeed. But if you say the dictionary is bad, alcohol is not a drug, etc... There is no point in discussing. Conservative poppers would keep popping and spoiling the wikipedia with propaganda. Keep drinking and say no to drugs, cops like that, boys!!! Drcaldev 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) In fact, enough information about Prohibition of Alcohol is already contained in the Prohibition (drugs) article. "Prohibition" should be at least renamed to Prohibition (alcohol) or merged into the history of the few countries treated there (but called "the world"). Drcaldev 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with your POV is a "conservative" or a "propagandist" (or other description used in an obviously pejorative sense) is a) offensive, b) inaccurate, and c) highly POV. You merely damage your own position by making these wild accusations. -- Necrothesp 10:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is enormous, because the propaganda tactic for making people think they are not living under an actual Prohibition seems to have been very effective. Also a lot of people attacking my criticism tend to be military oriented. Since militias and police are known to profit (indirectly and directly) from the Prohibition/Promotion of Certain Drugs (as Reinarman and Levine state in his "Secret of Worldwide Drug Prohibition", and Chomsky in the links and quotes given, etc) this is seems a conflict of interest. Drug war propaganda justifies a lot of budget to repressive forces. Representatives and sympathizers with these are usually brainwashed by their superiors and their training to defend to death this current profitable Prohibition, in which the budget to pay their salaries heavily depends. So I understand the virulent oppossition to a global point of view on the matter. Wikipedia seems to be intervened by the military. Let´s hope civil society could make a Civilipedia to compete with these Armypedia... Drcaldev 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means create a "Prohibition (current)" page, and link it from here, but this page should stay as it is, a resource to the historical periods known worldwide as Prohibition. However you have been warned several times for your personal attacks against other users, and the above comments yet again exemplify this tendancy for you to attack other users who do not agree with your own POV. Ben W Bell talk 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I´ve already apologized (well, indr¡irectly) but you people who begun calling me soapboxer and original researcher (before reading articles such as Prohibition (drugs) have not). That´s bad wikiquette too.

My assertions on the conflict of interest between military and paramilitary sympathizers and Prohibition issues are verifiable and not personally directed as attacks. Nobody has retracted from saying alcohol is not a drug (clear POV) while accussing me of being POV for telling the fact that alcohol is a drug! Drcaldev 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So these military and paramilitary sympathisers, who might they be? And I have never denied alcohol is a drug, and personally I'd be quite happy if alcohol was removed from the world. Ben W Bell talk 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition (historical) links to your nice page on past Alcohol Prohibitions. Prohibition (current) links to the Prohibition we nowadays live under. Drcaldev 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC) How is Prohibition (current) a distinct subject from Prohibition (drugs)? Gazpacho 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Well, if you want to learn things, you have to read Prohibition (drugs) and "Prohibition" (which should be renamed Prohibtion (Alcoholic Drugs)). Drcaldev 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I´m asking for consensus to redirect Prohibition to Prohibition (disambiguation), because of inherent ambiguity of the term prohibition, as shown in Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Drcaldev 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Prohibitionism is not the same as Prohibition. Prohibition refers to laws or legislation occurrences, while prohibitionism refers to political stances, parties, ideology and moral opinions, etc! Drcaldev 16:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree that the article shoud redirect here, it is not merely a stub but a dictionary definition. Happy for it to redirect tot he disambiguation page if you prefer but it should not be a content fork or merely a definition.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a vote on to redirect Prohibition to Prohibition (disambiguation)

1. NO Rjensen 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
2. (edit conflict) Clearly unnecessary, since the term is generally understood to describe US Prohibition (as described by other editors above). A dab link at the top of the page would be sufficient (see WP:DAB), although I'm not convinced even that is necessary. bikeable (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
3. No. Hasn't been shown to be necessary or useful, and there is no confusion over the term Prohibition as it corresponds to historical periods and this is understood worldwide. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Absolutely no. Minority opinion which doesn't reflect actual common usage. -- Necrothesp 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. No, at this point a link should do at the top of this page. People think of the history of prohibtion more commonly. HighInBC 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
6. No, however, the article header {{otheruses}} could be added to the prohibition article to make it clear the disambiguation page exists--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Yes. Why is a historical, past event (alcohol was legalized a lot time ago) prevailing and even blocking searchers from reading about a current event, in the Wikipedia? Strange to see ambiguity solved by prevalence of past over present (and future). Drcaldev 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a current affairs guide. Ergo, why should current events, especially those interpreted in a way most definitely not endorsed by the majority (as you can surely see from the lack of support for your views here), take precedence over historical events which have entered the cultural memory (and not only, contrary to your allegations, that of the United States, but the whole English-speaking world)? -- Necrothesp 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article, you would find that alcohol is not legal everywhere and prohibition is still current in parts of the world.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Current events, regardless of its interpretations, should at least take equal precedence than historical events. This I propose instead of the actual disposition, which gives so much precedence to the historical prohibition of a singular drug (whose article fails to provide any link to the current prohibition, even though is a historical fact that the actual prohibition is derived from the historical one!). In this way wikipedia would be more integral and informative, and less POV, in my opinion.

It is noteworthy that Ben W Bell, who claimed to be an expert on Prohibition, showed to ignore about the existence of the article Prohibition (drugs). This shows how much the article on Prohibition can block even the most "informed" reader from informing about the current history of the phenomena!

I have to insist on the point: 1. alcohol is a drug, 2. there is an article on prohibition of drugs (that now we all know about), then 3. Why alcohol prohibition doesn´t belong there? Can somebody explain that without resorting to ad populum fallacies, as has invariably being done until now in this discussion? I mean without saying: things are thus because everybody agrees with us, we are majority, etc. Which is a fallacious appeal because wikipedia is no democracy. This is: you "ten" people who agree with each other could be (and to me seem to be) wrong, anyway! Drcaldev 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't democracy but it is the way that Wikipedia works. You have failed to build a consensus for your proposal. The longer you contribute here, the more often that will happen. I have lost numerous arguments this way but the work goes on. You can't always be on the winning side, you just make the articles the best you can. Rmhermen 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I question the relevancy/accuracy of this sentence: "Supported by the anti-German mood of World War I,the Anti-Saloon League, working with both major parties, pushed a Constitutional amendment through Congress and the states..." What material I've read about Prohibition in the U.S. indicates that the movement and the amendments had little to do with an ethnic/nationalistic bias towards alcohol. America had its own deeply-planted roots of alcohol abuse to contend with; no finger-pointing to beer-drinking Germans, wine-drinking Italians, or whiskey-imbibing Canadians was necessary (if that's what the "anti-German" part refers to). Prohibition was a reaction against what was seen as a dissolution of morals, brought on in part by the atrocities of WWI, but also the Communist "Red" scare, the advent of radio, the Suffrage movement, and a host of other things. Thoughts about moving to strike "Supported by the anti-German mood of World War I" and leaving the rest as is?

Most historians emphasize the ethnic angle. The German American community, after all, brewed nearly all the beer. The beer companies owned most saloons (says Duis), and they hired Irish barkeepers. The Germans were in VERY bad odor during the war. The wine drinking Italians were not too visible but they too were covered. Rjensen 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Were not also claims against Irish drunks? Perhaps racism/xenophobia should be mentioned as a claimed or supportive background to the prohibition of alcoholic drugs by USA, just as it is in the article on Prohibition of drugs (including alcohol) which should take precedence over this one. Drcaldev 01:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

in wwi era I don't think I recall many complaints about irish drunks. Rjensen 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition page sub section :United States: says " However, note that according to the text, the purchase, possession and consumption of alcohol was not prohibited." but the linked main page :Prohibition in the United States: says "At any time possession of liquor, wine or beer was illegal. Drinking alcohol was never technically illegal, but one who was drinking was liable for prosecution on the grounds that they possessed the alcohol they were drinking." Purchase is not even mentioned. I was left totally confused. Which version is correct? 65.32.235.30 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am completly confused by this completely somone please give some accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.191.2 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2007

I understand that there is a period of time known as "Prohibition" where alcohol was illegal. But that doesn't mean prohibition should redirect here because other uses of the term prohibition have equal validity. You can argue all you want that the world thinks of alcohol prohibition when they hear "prohibition", but there is no proof for this. I know many people that uses the term "prohibition" for drug prohibition first. So prohibition should redirect to "Prohibition (disambiguation)". And I will make this change soon unless any of you can come up with a good reason why I shouldn't. Zachorious 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One good reason is that Wikipedia has a tradition of first come first served. There is no problem with listing a link to a Prohibition (disambiguation) at the top of the page, but this article has been here for many years. See articles like Firefly, United States and many others. Having a disambiguation page is fine, but this article should stay just as it is as has been decided in previous discussions (see above). Ben W Bell talk 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the word "Prohibition" can refer to the illegality of certain non-alcohol drugs, particularly in present times. I really REALLY think this needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. By denying this meaning of the word Prohibition, the article, I believe, avoids an extremely pertinent issue to which the word relates right now. Talking about the past is fine, but at very least could we have a disambiguation page and make the current Prohibition article Prohibition (alcohol) instead? I didn't even know the Prohibition (drugs) page existed. Some websites: - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Prohibition Has Failed, an article by David Boaz, and Drugs, a similar article by Milton Friedman, Time to Rethink Drug Prohibition, Anthony Papa, Does Drug Prohibition Help Terrorists?, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, (www.serendipity.li/wod.html) Prohibition: The So-Called War on Drugs]. Clearly the word Prohibition USED to refer to Alcohol Prohibition particularly, but in modern times, the word, in reference to "drug prohibition", is obviously getting around. People are using it in this sense, Wikipedia needs to do so as well. 150.203.11.219 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

150.203.11.219 is right. The "first come first served" "tradition" doesn't make much sense. Wikipedia isn't based on tradition but rather a rapid progression and update of facts. Furthermore, there is no evidence that alcohol prohibition uses the term more than general drug prohibition. As the above user mentioned, so many drug organizations use the term "prohibition".

If a source is not found soon that proves that the worldwide view of prohibition means only alcohol prohibition, I'm going to redirect "Prohibition" to the disambiguation page and re-title this Prohibition (drugs). Zachorious 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol is one of the most common and seriously impairing drugs of abuse. This is an undenieable fact. The article on prohibitionism of alcohol must merge with that on prohibitionism of the rest of drugs, and historical and economical relationships between legalization of alcohol and prohibition of alternative drugs of minorities should be emphasized. Propagandizing alcohol as a "commodity" or other euphemisms is promotion of alcoholism, and should be suspectful of relation with alcoholicdrugaddicts or narcotrafficants of alcohol (this is alcohol producers and those growing several plants for the manufacture of this lethal and addicting substance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you're back. These discussions have been had before and community consensus has been reached. Please read through the discussions before pushing for the same edits again that you did last year. Ben W Bell talk 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed? And what was the argument for community consenting on classifying alcohol among food and drinks and not among drugs? Go on and read the article named Alcohol. And what is the term for a community consensus to be revised? These same discussions couldn´t have been had before, because "nobody bathes twice in the same river". I think the position of Ben W Bell et al. on alcohol erodes deeply the scientific credibility of this article. Reading of the first paragraphs of the article entitled Alcohol would help "community" revise this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody bathes twice in the same river? Eh? Tell that to people who live near and bathe in rivers. I've no idea what you're talkig about. I've read the first few paragraphs and don't see the relevance. What of the many definitions of drug are you talking about? Everything is a drug under a broad enough definition. And why should it be merged? The article on prohibition of alcohol is about various countries prohibiting alcohol. Merge it into other drugs prohibition and it will be moved back out almost instantly as it covers enough of a social and historical area to warrant its own article. Why merge a large article into another just because you don't like it? Ben W Bell talk 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the government's proposed ban on alcohol and pornography in Aboriginal communities, aimed at minimising and/or preventing child abuse. Some argue that a better approach would be to consult with Aboriginal leaders rather than applying a blanket ban and create initiatives to improve the quality of life of the Aboriginal people. From a quick search on google - here's an article from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6229708.stm Skylarken (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I should put the part about Thailand away. Because Thailand doesn't ban selling of alcohol, but there is time limit of selling alcohol. The sell may be purchased 10am-2pm and 5pm until midnight, there is exeption for whole sale (10 litres or more) can be sold at any time. And there is the law about prohibition on the day before and the day of election (in case of particular area election, there is prohibition only in the district where the election is held.) Just yesterday(14 April,08), there has been some suggestion of alcohol prohibition on Thai festival days, to reduce the traffic death rate on holiday period. However, it's still being disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.71.133 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "prohibition" page should deal with the concept more generally, with "Prohibition of Alcohol" and "Prohibition of Drugs" being sub-pages. It is currently confusing and not logical. Chendy (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Since nothing has been posted as to why it should be merged, or an argument for it I'm going oppose. It's been discussed before, and this is definitely a large enough topic to warrant a separate article. Plus the Prohibition (drugs) is a huge article anyway that probably should be split down. Plus it all comes down to the argument over alcohol=drugs in the conventional sense. Also it has been brought up again by the same user who seems to be pretty single minded about this topic, and has brought this up before and rejected by the community. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "also known as The Noble Experiment" for its blatant america-centrism. This article is on prohibition in general80.167.153.43 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough to write it, but somebody should add a section to this article that talks about how doctors could write their patients prescriptions ("scrips") for alcohol, sometimes called "drug store rye". For a personal account, check out: http://www.virtualnewarknj.com/memories/downneck/keeganshalit.htm --68.80.78.97 16:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since 1920s Prohibition is one of my pet subjects, I'll do that some time if I remember. I've also got bookmarked a (seemingly non-copyrighted) hi-res scan of the Medicinal Alcohol form used in this procedure. It was fully legal(!) and prescriptions were written and filled without question, would certainly never happen today! Master Thief Garrett 06:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

but how come drinks are also sold now, why did drink stop solding.

---

This entry gives the illusion that both the US and Canada had the same law (the Volstead Act) enforcing prohibition during the same period (1919-1933) - whereas this is only true for the United States. Canadian prohibition was a provincial law that was passed by the various provinces during the first twenty years of the 1900s (1st was PEI-1900, Last was Quebec-1919); the provinces then repealed their prohibition laws mostly during the twenties (1st was Quebec-1920, the shortest amount of time with prohibition enforced; Last was PEI-1948). If I get around to it on my vacation, I may update the main Prohibition entry properly to reflect this.

Also some mention needs to be added of the huge business of smuggling alcohol from Canada to the US during Prohibition. Rmhermen 21:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I added a mention of how in certain situations stills could explode in this article. It happened to my great-uncle once, where the equipment he was using to make beer exploded (but I think it was after prohibition, he was homebrewing.) Fortunately he wasn't hurt in the explosion. Probably many of us have people in our family histories who had turned to making their own. My great-grandpa had made his own beverages during this time. Where my uncle's family lives in Louisiana, the town where they live is dry. It doesn't mean too much other than that there are no bars or stores selling alcoholic beverages where they live. They just have to go a couple miles to get to a store that can sell beer, and there's no real enforcement of the actual dry rules. The only thing the police care about is underage and drunk driving. Kind of makes me wonder why the town even still has the dry rule on the books, unless it's just the principle of the thing. JesseG 01:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not only are some towns dry across the country (my parents live in a dry town in upstate NY), but in many states, especially in the south, entire counties are dry. I know in some parts of Arkansas and Alabama you have to drive a long ways to get a drink, because multiple adjacent counties are dry. --ntk 20 Jul 2004

Maybe this one has been discussed before, I can not quite believe that prohibition of, specifically, alcohol, is the subject of an article under, simply, Prohibition
Maybe it is not so strange to someone whose history is more US than my own
Seems to me the article should be at Prohibition of alcohol, and Prohibition should be a redirect to Prohibitionism (or vice versa)
Laurel Bush (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about a dictionary definition, but about the specific term definition of Prohibition which is generally used in relation to alcohol. And yes it has been discussed before, and proposed many times, but each time it's decided to leave it at Prohibition. See the archives for the previous discussions. If after reading you still think there is a case, by all means start up a discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So
I have to remember to use, say, [[Prohibitionism|prohibition]]-based drug control laws rather than [[prohibition]]-based drug control laws?
Seems crazy to me
If we completely disregard dictionary definitions in article titles then getting articles to relate to each other in any meaninful fashion can be rather difficult
Wikipedia turns into more of a jumble than a coherent encyclopaedia
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Prohibition as a term is very commonly used on its own, not just in the US but worldwide, to refer more specifically to the prohibition of alcohol. There is prohibition of other substances and items yes, but when used on its own it is generally academically being used to refer to alcohol without further qualifiers. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see no real problem with having content of Prohibition at Prohibition of alcohol, in terms, for example, of the content becoming difficult to find for anyone who usually abreviates prohibition of alcohol to prohibition
Laurel Bush (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any real problem with having the content at Prohibition rather than Prohibition of Alcohol? Prohibition of Alcohol redirects here. By all means initiate a move request if you think there is good reason. It's been discussed and decided against on a couple of occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

prohibition was a plan to stop people from drinking alcholic beverages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.172.34 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says "Volstead Act (passed October 28, 1934). " but the Volstead Act was at the beginning of the prohibition era, not the end.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.207.34 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

=== Date is correct, now in "Prohibition in the United States" Facts707 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading this article, one would think that the only reason for prohibition is religion and piety. However - alcohol can be a bad thing in its own right: it dethrones reason, causes violence, breaks up families, takes food from the mouths of children, and transports people from gracious living into a bottomless pit of degradation, despair, shame, helplessness, and hopelessness. New Thought (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone go back through the history and figure out what was deleted? Chadlupkes (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The chinese script was only introduced in about 1,200 B.C. and events said to have taken place before then are often legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Agree. I've removed this as it's superfluous. China's supposed 5000 years of recorded history is disputed by non Chinese historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.169.161 (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here looking for a list of countries currently prohibiting alcohol, and didn't find one. I suspect the article does include the information, but a list in the summary at the top (or perhaps another section) seems like it would improve the article. —Darxus (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus, there is no section at all on the Middle East. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Kuwait are given a cursory mention under "West Asia." This seems like a glaring oversight. Gyrovagus (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we capitalize the use of "Prohibition" in the article, when used as a time period /event / proper noun?

I've seen source material do it either way. For example, this think tank capitalizes it: - http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

But this academic article does not: - https://prohibition.osu.edu/why-prohibition

Any thoughts?

DellGriffith899 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think yes, just as we capitalize the Great Depression EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My commentary on the cartoon (whose link is at the right) is what i had to stare a while at, at higher resolution, to deduce:

1. The wagon that the anti-salooners are surrounding is a 1900s muscle-powered pump wagon.
2. Thus, the hose nozzle held in the saloonkeeper's mouth by the WCTU lady is being fed by the pumper.
3. They are each on one of two teams, where each temps pumps by raising its end of the actuator while the other pumps lowers its and then reverses roles (without changing position).
4. Only one has failed to ensue a view of the torture.
5. My first reading (that the guys around the wagon are about to tar and feather another saloon owner, or maybe add that to the visible one's woes) is nonsense.

--Jerzy•t 23:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

173.169.125.65 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I tried to put the 'ref' tags around the reference information, but it went to the end of the info, rather than the reference info going into the middle of the reference tag. Kim DeBois

The section on Australia says...

"The Australian Capital Territory was the first jurisdiction in Australia to enable prohibition laws. In 1910 King O'Malley, the then Minister of Home Affairs, shepherded the laws through parliament to address unruly behaviour. Seventeen years later the Federal Parliament repealed the laws."

Well, it did until an IP editor, making his first edit ever here, added..

"This is patently false. Who wrote this?! The ACT didn't even exist in 1910. The land was transferred to the Commonwealth Government by the NSW government in 1911. Melbourne was the capital of Australia until 1928. This idea that the ACT, which didn't exist -- and by the way neither did Canberra -- had prohibition laws in 1910 is ridiculous."

That addition has now been reverted, correctly, but sadly in a somewhat rude and aggressive way, by User:Harlem Baker Hughes. (See the IP editor's Talk page.) I say that because our IP editor makes what seems a perfectly valid point. The ACT didn't exist in 1910 (our Australian Capital Territory article confirms this), so how could the statement in this article be true? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how much of a conversation I'll get here. User:Harlem Baker Hughes claims to have retired from Wikipedia after I criticised him for abusing the first time IP editor, who hasn't returned after having his head bitten off. I've added a citation needed tag to the doubtful text. If anyone can explain and source it, feel free to remove that tag. HiLo48 (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

King O'Malley pushed through a ban on alcohol in the ACT (originally Federal Capital Territory) in 1911, shortly after the land was allocated. The ban was repealed in 1928. ^[1] Rjmatthews62 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Reinstated with corrected date and a citation. The National Archives of Australia says the act was introduced in 1911, but it appears the ordinance was drafted in late 1910. It is worth noting that the ban was put in place even before the capital city was named... King O'Malley was a ardent teetotaler. Rjmatthews62 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no mention in this article of the near east policies? South and southeast asia, america, south america and europe are mentioned, but no middle east. and what about africa too?108.70.63.96 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Go right ahead and add the material-- don't be shy. Less people pitch in and help, problems will remain. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be renamed. The current name only makes sense to American readers. I'm not an American and the name confused me; I couldn't understand what this article was actually about before looking up the term "prohibition". "Prohibition" as a term to refer to the criminalization of alcohol consumption is not only US-centric it is archaic and anachronistic, referring to a period in history about 80 years ago. Why should readers be assumed to know about this period of history in a single country?

The simple fact is, I don't see what would be lost by renaming this article to, "Prohibition of alcohol" or and something similar and something would definitely be gained. ALongDream (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Many articles that link to Prohibition should actually link to a related article such as Prohibition in the United States or the corresponding article for other countries or regions. For example, any article that says something like "... the winery was closed during Prohibition ..." should pipe "Prohibition in the United States" into the link, as "... the winery was closed during Prohibition ..." (assuming, of course, the usual case that Prohibition refers to the United States and not some other country). I have edited about 50 articles making changes along these lines, but now I want to move on to other projects, and I encourage other editors to click the "What links here" link at Prohibition and edit some incoming links. Unfortunately, any page containing {{Criminal law}}, {{Prohibition}}, or two other less-used templates will automatically appear on the What links here page, so for rapid progress, edit articles that aren't likely to be in one of those categories. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen that the 18th Amendment was ratified early in 1919. But this article says 1920, which I believe is incorrect. I may go in and change to 1919 Stayhomegal (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No it's good. It didn't come into effect when it was ratified. Ratified in 1919 but wasn't in effect until early 1920. Not an uncommon occurrence for laws to come into force on a different date to when they're approved. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

[copied from
It's a violation of NPOV rules to erase sourced material without a discussion. You seem unaware that Capone was the #1 national and global symbol of American prohibition. Rjensen (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I'm not unaware of it, I just agree with the other editor that it's undue and chronologically out of place. Also, what you're claiming, him being a national symbol of prohibition, is not sourced in the section you've added back; it's merely a short biography. Even in Prohibition in the United States he doesn't have his own section. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree that he's a national symbol or not? eg " Al Capone became a symbol for the lawlessness of Prohibition and the failure of government to address the problems" Carolyn Boyes-Watson (2013). Crime and Justice: Learning through Cases. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 269. Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that he is a national symbol, but I still don't think that we need a whole section on him to write one sentence that he is regarded as a national symbol. That source with that claim can be added beside the sentence highlighting him and Lucky Luciano in the article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a general article on prohibition (small p) not the specific article on Prohibition in the US located at Prohibition in the United States. This is very much undue weight in an article that covers the entire topic at a global level. Even the specific article for the US barely mentions him. For him to get attention on this particular article is not really appropriate at all as he has nothing to do with the acts, policies and enactments of prohibition. In fact I would go as far as to say that the US section on this article is already too large and undue as it is. Capone was not the be all and end all of prohibition, in fact he wasn't anything to do with the prohibition at all (as this article's topic is). He was a response to it and a supplier and criminal that flourished underneath the US's prohibition at one specific time, not even for the entirety of it. He was a media darling, not even the largest bootlegger or criminal out there, just a media and law big name. There were plenty of other gangsters with more impact during the era of prohibition and he only held his position for half the period of that particular prohibition era. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Prohibition failed in its flagship country, and I suggest that Capone symbolized the main reason: it opened unexpected levels of major crime. The cites source suggests that Hoover made Capone the #1 target for the diaster. Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an incredibly US centric focus to think the US was prohibition's flagship country. Many other countries had prohibition before the US decided to try it, and most were much more successful. Plus it's up for debate on whether or not it failed in the US, something historians and lawmakers are still arguing over. Anyway this is a global view article, not a US view article. If you want to put details on a single person into it for one country, then why not them all? And why not concentrate on the people who implemented or managed to overturn prohibition, rather than someone who just profitted off of it and in the end had nothing to do with the policies, enactment or repeal of it. He may have been a symbol of certain aspects of prohibition, but was completely irrelevant to the actual legal enactment process of it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

flagship = biggest, best known country. The article is NOT about the worldwide movement, it's about specific conditions in many specific countries, and the US masterial all fits in the US section, I suggest. My addition DOES include the people who opposed it--their reasons,dates, & cite to Kyvig. This article is NOT limited to the enactment process-for USA it includes its operation (in 1920s) and repeal (in Great Depression). Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just throwing out my opinion that it's undue weight, especially in light of the fact that the extensive US article on it doesn't see fit to particularly cover Capone. Canterbury Tail talk 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Almost a third (more specifically, about 31%) of the article's content is about prohibition in the United States. There is already a main article Prohibition in the United States, most of the US-centric material should be moved there. JIP | Talk 23:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. The US section is way too detailed. I don't have time (or background knowledge on US history) to do a full check-and-integrate job on it, so if it were up to me I'd just do a bit of a slash-and-burn and some paraphrasing within this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye. I trust your judgement on it. Canterbury Tail talk 04:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Whose, Canterbury Tail? The long version or my shortcut? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Either. I agree there's too much US orientated stuff in this article that can be moved to the specific article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Prohibition in the United States is already almost 1.9 times as long as this entire article, so selecting what parts to move there and where to is going to be a bit tricky. Or the extraneous parts could be simply removed. JIP | Talk 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, JIP and Canterbury Tail, I've done two bouts of slash-and-burn, see what you think. Probably still a bit long considering there is a whole separate article, but feel free to cut more or reinstate if you think I've got rid of something important or retained any more trivial facts. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It has now gone down to less than a fifth (18% to be more precise). Looks good so far! JIP | Talk 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Countrieswithalcoholprohibition.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)