![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
RE: This edit Although the Amendment and the Volsted Act were passed in 1919, they did not take effect until 1920. -- Javaweb ( talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
Discussion has been closed, as the proposal was withdrawn |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I propose that American gangsters during the 1920s be merged and redirected to the organized crime section of this article. The gangsters article is poorly written and vastly undersourced, but deals mainly with the gangsters who rose to prominence by exploiting the black market created by alcohol prohibition. So what content can be salvaged and properly sourced (which certainly some of it can be) from that article is relevent to the Prohibition article. Certainly there ought to be at least mention of Capone, Dillinger, and the other notorious gangsters of the prohibition era.-- I.C. Rivers ( talk) 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Good points made by Rjensen. The proposal is withdrawn.-- I.C. Rivers ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
One thing that was clear during Prohibition is the drop in deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, normally caused by alcoholism. The medical profession was not "looking for" this particularly and was surprised when it happened. So drinking dropped. Headlines went up, as usual with the media. Kids drank til they could drink no more, but per capita dropped. Student7 ( talk) 14:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a chart or something that shows when each state enacted prohibition prior to the 18th Amendment? The article mentions that Kansas enacted Prohibition in its state constitution in 1881 and there's reference to some unnamed southern states then enacting prohibition, so apparently various states enacted some form of prohibition before the Constitutional amendment. Jtyroler ( talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
the economics section is not very useful unless it is expressed in terms of achieving the stated goals of "educating the young, forming a better public sentiment, reforming the drinking classes, transforming by the power of Divine grace those who are enslaved by alcohol, and removing the dram-shop from our streets by law" & add the Fisher goals of efficient labor force. The "cost" of enforcement is the cost of achieving these goals and that was not addressed by the text Rjensen ( talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that prohibition can be called "illustrative of class distinctions", simply because it may have been "a law unfairly biased in its administration favoring social elites". Biased administration of laws does not apply only to prohibition. If this is the test of class distinction, most laws could be said to be "illustrative of class distinctions", and thus should be appealed. I suspect that people of all classes endeavoured to avoid the rules, and many - of all classes - got away with it. 101.98.209.132 ( talk) 23:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Prohibition in the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The section about the Great and General banning strong waters has a strong scent of folklore about it. Anyone have a meaningful cite? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Jo Ann Butler ( talk) 21:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Jo Ann Butler
I admit to being rather baffled at the removal of this April 2017 study ("Infant Mortality and the Repeal of Federal Prohibition"), published by three economists through the National Bureau of Economic Research. The abstract summarizes the study: "Exploiting a newly constructed dataset on county-level variation in prohibition status from 1933 to 1939, this paper asks two questions: what were the effects of the repeal of federal prohibition on infant mortality? And were there any significant externalities from the individual policy choices of counties and states on their neighbors?" The full text is also avaliable through the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and an earlier draft here for free courtesy of the Stanford economics department.
It strikes me as really weird for a user to think that this study is "not relevant" - it's obviously related to Prohibition in the United States and fits in very cleanly under the "Effects of Prohibition" subsection. This kind of recent academic scholarship seems to be exactly the kind of thing that we need more of across the encyclopedia. No policy-based reason for exclusion has been presented to me. I didn't add this content, by the way, Snooganssnoogans initially added it. Neutrality talk 22:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that the repeal of Prohibition increased the infant mortality rate: "Cumulating across the six years from 1934 to 1939, our results indicate an excess of 13,665 infant deaths that could be attributable to the repeal of federal prohibition in 1933."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Prohibition in the United States. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
"Research shows" that it was good, while "criticism remains" that it was bad. The good effects are proven by research, while the bad effects are just unproven criticism. That's how you manipulate, folks. -- jae ( talk) 21:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The article suggests both; I feel it should be lower case, but I guess it could be a noun, so...? Remagoxer ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It's upper case when referring to the Law itself and lower when used as a descriptor. Mark Dask 22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused by the use of "dries" in this article. The first use is Prohibition was supported by the dries, primarily pietistic Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans, but also included the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America and, to a certain extent, the Latter-day Saints and the second is In March 1917, the 65th Congress convened, in which the dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 in the Democratic Party and 138 to 62 among Republicans. They don't seem to be referring to the same thing. The first seems to be referring to religious denominations, the second to members of congress? -- valereee ( talk) 09:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Did the prohibition start on January 16th or on January 17th? The article says January 17th. The article about January 1920 says January 16th. Homogeneity would be preferred. A lot of people will read and talk about this in just a few days. Calle Widmann ( talk) 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me what the status of prohibition was in the American territory of the Phillipine Islands Kanto7 ( talk) 05:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Almost certain I saw an ‘American Justice’ episode which had a text screen before the commercial that said that 80 percent of the Treasury agents were working for the Italian-American mafia during prohibition. Something like taking a third or a quarter of their annual salary to not show up at work leaving their section wide open on the Ca-US border. Less certain, and unsure of where I heard it, 92-94 percent of increased armed violence during prohibition was due to Al Capone. May be way off......idk. Brad41071 ( talk) 07:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
For my own notes, I had scraped a copy of the lead circa November 2016. Today I encountered this note again and noticed that it did not sketch a quick, compelling picture.
As I tried to figure this out, I noticed that there was an elementary punctuation error: an appositive before the main verb set off with a comma on only one side. So I came here thinking I might fix this small error, and what I found was a lead nearly 80% rewritten during the intervening 5 years.
The present lead is light years better than my previous copy.
I've quickly scraped a lot of leads for my own notes in my time, and I've rarely ever seen a lead improve by this much that wasn't previously stub category.
Kudos to those involved! Too often on Wikipedia good enough proves immune to this kind of wholesale change entirely for the betterment. — MaxEnt 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is there no article on prohibition? The USA is not the only country to have banned alcohol - indeed many countries and districts have done so. Shouldn't the article be on prohibition generally? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I added citation templates to references that I could verify if the existing reference did not already have a template. This will make the long list of references more consistent. As needed I also updated existing template citations so they have a consistent format. Several of the citations remain incomplete - so please update those references with the missing information if you can verify them. Rosalina523 ( talk) 19:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cp1006.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
MichaelD6969.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As written, Consequences of Prohibition reads like a less-neutral WP:CFORK of Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_prohibition. However, a fair amount of the information in the Enforcement section of Consequences of Prohibition would be good to merge. signed, Rosguill talk 05:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Possibly of interest: this 1916 ad from an unsuccessful Washington State initiative to modify the terms of that state's Prohibition law (which had gone into effect January 1 of that year) gives good descriptions of the then-current limits on alcohol possession in various U.S. states and certain Canadian provinces at that time. Washington itself, at that time, did not allow manufacture of alcohol but did sell per-order permits to allow purchase from out-of-state for private consumption. The failed initiative tried to revive in-state manufacture and sale of beer, still confining it to private consumption. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
What are some facts about prohibition 2600:8804:1BCE:1900:991:A50D:50C1:5048 ( talk) 00:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)