Jump to content

Talk:Prohibition Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founding date

[edit]

um this seems wrong:

The party was founded in 2011.

What year was it really founded in? I'm quite sure its not 2011 and his is probably either vandalism or a type-error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.203.200 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that the Prohibition Party would appear to be split between supporters and opponents of Earl Dodge - the anti-Dodge people's "history" section consists largely of a lengthy screed against Dodge, who apparently sold the longtime party headquarters and pocketed the money...I have no idea which group is to be considered the proper Prohibition Party - both seem to be running presidential slates this year... john k 22:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment. The faction of the party that sponsored Amondson in '04 represents roughly 80% of the earlier national committee. This faction has gained ballot status in Florida for 2008 and has re-organized a state committee in Pennsylvania. This faction has the only elected official in the nation and most of the party's energy. Chronicler3 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]

2004 Election Information

[edit]

I do not agree with the latest change on this page. Amondson appeared on the ballot in Louisiana as the Prohibition Party nominee and received 1,566 votes [[1]]. Amondson and Dodge both appeared on the ballot in Colorado, where only 518 votes were cast for both of them [[2]]. Overall, Amondson received 1,944 votes. These numbers should not be separated out from the other totals. Chronicler3 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

[edit]

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misleading quote

[edit]

I removed the Earl Dodge quote about the politics1.com article, since the quote dates back to 2000, and therefore cannot be a reference to the description of the 2003 schism.

Caldodge (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caldodge- Although you have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia, I operate under the assumption of your good faith. Therefore, I have simply deleted without negative comment the material you inserted into the quote. It cannot remain because it is unacceptable practice to introduce material into a quote if it could mislead readers into thinking that it appeared in the original.
I have also re-inserted the following statement which is necessary to explain minor non-substantive changes I made in the quote: “Note: Tense changed in quotation from present to past because of Earl Dodge’s death.”
Incidentally, I don’t believe your father’s quote regarding the accuracy of Politics1.com is misleading. By letting his comments stand, he is reasonably presumed to have acknowledged the accuracy of the material in question. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with you. A comment my father made in 2000 CANNOT reasonably be assumed to apply to content created in 2003, and I think it's ludicrous for you to suggest otherwise. Meanwhile, I maintain that your stated opposition to all temperance organizations shows a conflict of interest on your part, though admittedly perhaps not as severe as mine. Frankly, I don't operate on the assumption of your good faith. I see I'm not the only one who questions your good faith, as evidenced by this

Caldodge (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This party still exists? I remember reading something about this in AP US, but uh... didn't its purpose kinda die when prohibition ended? No one is going to read this page to get "up-to-date" info about a single issue party that most people haven't heard of, so quit whining about who misquoted who's daddy. Chill out, have a drink.

(68.81.44.83 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Happy Repeal Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.250.114 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Party's purpose didn't die when Prohibition ended, since its purpose was to enact national Prohibition. But the members (and voters who remembered the era favorably) did die out. I believe TIME (not my late father) is "the architect of oblivion" for the party, and it will do no better in the post-Dodge era then it did during it. Caldodge (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Prohibition states, 1896

[edit]

Here is the tally of Bentley Electors: AR 892; CA 1,047; CO 386; IL 793; IN 2,267; IA 352; KS 620; MD 136; MI 1,816; MO 292; NE 797; NH 49; NJ 5,614; NC 222; OH 2,716; PA 870; WA 148; WI 346. Chronicler3 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"unsourced" comments

[edit]

I find it fascinating that accusations against my late father are considered "sourced" when the only sources are members of the other Party faction (nearly all the links listed point to their site, and one which doesn't points do a different site which merely quotes a member of the other faction).

Meanwhile, if I point that out on the page (i.e., saying "see for yourself"), my comments are "unsourced". Fine - I'll make the comments here.

Caldodge (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn VP candidates?

[edit]

Why did Carrier and Holdridge withdraw? Шизомби (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV

[edit]

I don't know anything about this party, but obviously exclamation points aren't are good sign. The section on the split isn't NPOV, but I can't verify the factual nature--Jeff (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "split" section appears to have been written by someone from the other faction. It contains phrases which aren't in any cited text, and which claim to know Dad's state of mind ("saw the writing on the wall"). It's interesting that the "split" section is much larger than the general history, and is obviously written completely from the other faction's POV.

My own opionion? The Party was a small pond, and some people wanted to be the big frogs in that pond. I attended party conventions from 1971 to 1991, and I witnessed attempts by others to take over the party for their benefit. The people who succeeded at this get their jollies by slandering Dad, and blaming him for the party's decline.

The only dog I have in this fight is Dad's reputation, since I left the party in 1994 due to disagreements with the platform. I know from personal experience how dedicated Dad was to the party and the Prohibition cause (sacrificing his financial security to save the party in 1960, paying his own way to Philadelphia during the court battle over the Pennock trust fund). He believed wholeheartedly in the cause (unlike the other faction's current leadership, who have weakened the party's anti-alcohol position).

Caldodge (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I believe User:Smokedoctor is a pseudonym for Leroy Pletten, the Johnny-come-lately leader of the anti-Dodge faction. It seems probable to me that some of the other pseudonyms here are also his, not to mention the additions of David J Hanson, an anti-Prohibitionist who revels in anything which hurts the temperance cause. Kindly keep that in mind when judging the neutrality of the article.

Caldodge (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm getting a dead link for http://www.prohibition.org/ – anyone know what's up? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - we had to transfer the domain, and the actual file transfer slipped through the cracks. Caldodge (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition revisionism

[edit]

Smokedoctor reinstated some text I had removed making various dubious claims about prohibition, such as arguing that a one-year delay in the onset of Prohibition "enabled the affluent to hoard alcohol, and led to class resentments and divisions, undermining the Amendment's effectiveness." I'm not sure this kind of editorializing should be in Wikipedia at all, but at the minimum, it's sufficiently at odds with the convention view on the subject that it should come with a citation to a reliable source. More generally, this page appears to have been written by PP partisans who still view Prohibition as a good idea. Their views should be fairly represented, but any factual claims should be cited, and we should make sure we also fairly represent the more mainstream view of the period, that Prohibition was a bad idea. Binarybits (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that theory (I don't think the "one-year delay" issue was in "The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment, but it's been a while since I read it).

IIRC the general belief among Prohibitionists is that enforcement was lax, and that started from the top, with Andrew Mellon. I don't know how valid that belief was, though. Caldodge (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's good evidence that "Smokedoctor" is actually Leroy Pletten, the man who engineered a takeover of the party. Caldodge (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul needed

[edit]

This article needs a major overhaul. At the moment, the History section, which discusses a period during which the party was an important player in national politics, won hundreds of thousands of votes in national elections and had elected officials in different parts of the country is covered by a few short paragraphs, while at least two thirds of the article are dedicated to the "Secession of 2003", which took place at a time when the party's numbers have dwindled to a mere fraction of what they once were.

In short, "Secession of 2003" currently occupies a totally disproportionate part of the article, not to mention that its tone sounds very POV, and based on the discussion here, it mainly seems to serve as a battleground for a sandbox fight between the two factions. I'm sure that for those involved in it, the secession is a very important topic, but from an outsider's point of view, I'd say that its importance to nearly 140 years of party history - and this Wikipedia article - is highly questionable. I would suggest that someone more knowledgeable in Prohibition Party history add more information about the party's history and role in US politics prior to World War II and cut down the "Secession of 2003" section where, in my opinion, the only relevant, unchallenged bits of information are the following:

  • In 2003, there was a split within the party between supporters and opponents of chairman Earl Dodge
  • The two factions ran separate tickets in the 2004 presidential election (Dodge/Lydick vs. Amondson/Pletten)
  • There was a legal dispute as to which faction was entitled to the funds of the historical party, which was eventually settled out of court

I don't have the knowledge required to rewrite or improve the article (that was the reason I came here - to get information). I hope that someone who doesn't have a stake in this fight will pick up the challenge and write a new version that concentrates on relevant, unbiased information instead of the present-day party's internal squabbles. Jah77 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your suggestion - but I wouldn't be the person to rewrite it. That's partly because I have a stake in the fight, and partly because I don't have detailed knowledge of the Party's history (just a few memories of things Dad said and wrote).

The "Secession of 2003" (a good example of Churchill's quote that "history is written by the victors") was written and edited by 2 sorts of people - either Leroy Pletten (the man who engineered a takeover of the Party by threatening the existing board members with lawsuits) and his allies, or David J Hanson (who thinks prohibition of alcohol is a terrible idea, and republishes any "information" he can find to denigrate its proponents). Your best bet might be to contact the U of M's Bentley Historical Library (http://bentley.umich.edu/research/guides/temperance/), which has one of the largest collection of Prohibition and temperance-related documents in the US. Caldodge (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the first step of labeling the claims that require citation. Binarybits (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the neutrality issues have been dealt with. Any objections to removing the tag? Binarybits (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objections I've removed the tag. Binarybits (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add a Criticism section!

[edit]

Here's some text for consideration to include in the article:

The ideological and political notion of limiting access to alcohol products has been noted by many researchers as outdated, unscientific and overly-manipulative of human populaces. (Add many easy to find, empirically researched references here.) Furthermore, contemporary studies highly correlate moderate alcohol beverage consumption with many health benefits, including (but not limited to) decreased risk of atherosclerosis,[1]

References

  1. ^ Kuller, Lewis H., Pearson, Thomas A., Steinberg, Daniel. Alcohol and atherosclerosis, Article Abstract. American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1991. ISSN: 0003-4819.
The above is a criticism of temperance in general and might go in that article. Even there though, a criticism citing one scientific paper only would not survive for 30 seconds. Take a look at the articles in the Alcohol and Health box to see hundreds of papers about alcohol's effects, often bad but sometimes good. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came over to Discussion to suggest removing the criticism section because it seems unrelated to the party itself, and I see the criticism section is relatively new. Until there's substantive content to put there that's specifically relevant to the US Prohibition Party rather than general prohibition movements, I think removing it is the correct option. 74.125.59.65 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section should be removed. It's criticizing the party's platform rather than the party itself. That's the equivalent of the including a section about Austrian School economics in the Socialist Party USA article. I will remove the section.Mustang6172 (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Davis' recent edits

[edit]

Anyone here (certainly not me) have a solidly-grounded opinion as to which faction gets priority here? (There have been vaguely-similar questions about the line of succession, if it's any comfort to anyone, at Talk:Socialist Party of America and Talk:Social Democrats USA). An IP Editor identifying himself as Toby Davis, Chairman of the Prohibition Party with an e-mail address, has replaced Gene Amondson's name with his own as National Chairman in the Info Box, and switched (without deleting) the links to http://www.prohibitionists.org and http://www.prohibitionparty.org. Mr. Davis would obviously be well-informed but might also fail the WP:Conflict of interest guidelines, unless supported by a well-grounded consensus here. If Gene Amondson's group won most of the votes in 2008, that might suggest a different order of treatment. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Amondson passed away in June of 2009. I, as Vice-Chairman, took over his role as Chairman. The remaining party members are united with the active party website as http://www.prohibitionparty.org. The older http://www.prohibitionists.org website remains as an educational / historical portal known as the Partisan Prohibition Historical Society.RTDavis (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current chair

[edit]

So who is the Prohibition Party's current chairman? The web site calls James Hedges "executive secretary" - is this the same thing as party chair? Jah77 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current chairman is Rick Knox. Executive secretary is another type of leadership position within the prohibition party. You can se him listed in the latest issue of the national prohibitionist, which a link to can be found on the prohibition party website.Yelekam (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prohibition Party. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message From Hedges

[edit]

Executive Secretary of the Prohibition Party, Jim Hedges, has instructed me on his behalf to communicate this message. He would like to congratulate the editors on this page for their good work in producing an up to date and accurate article.Yelekam (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who first came to this page to find it disappointingly uninformative and focused on recent petty inter-party disputes, I'm glad to see that this is now looking like a real encyclopedia entry. Thanks to all contributors for their work! Jah77 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prohibition Party. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article links to a Canadian Prohibition Party article that does not exist

[edit]

Should this article still link to the Canadian Prohibition Party article if it does not exist? Should this hatnote be removed until such an article is created? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampadias (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lampadias, I say, be bold and delete it. Certainly doesn't make much sense to me to have that hatnote there. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-abortion" vs "pro-choice"

[edit]

I just reverted an edit changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" in the section about the Party's platform. But that's not what the platform says:

SANCTITY OF LIFE We recognize that the issues of abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia often divide this country. The SCOTUS has ruled that the states shall regulate access to abortion; as each state works to regulate this issue, we recognize that women must be included in the legislative process, and encourage states to look for constructive ways to address the issue. We believe that each woman should have the right to decide based on her own conscience. [3]

Many people who would prefer that there be fewer abortions (which implies more birth control as well as more abstinence) still prefer to leave that decision (to coin a phrase) to the pregnant woman, her doctors and her spiritual advisor. That's different from wanting more abortions, which is what "pro-abortion" implies. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any way this platform can fairly be construed as "pro-abortion." That seems like framing the issue through an extremely narrow and POV lens.--User:Namiba 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USHR elections before 1938

[edit]

Prohibition Party#Electoral history lists only Congressional election results after 1937. Does anyone know about votes before then? There have to be some, since the California Prohibitionist Representative who voted in 1917 against entering World War I must have received at least some votes. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR regarding flag

[edit]

The flag depicted is NOT a flag associated with the Prohibition Party, nor is it correctly imaged.

The original book source quoted in the WIKI actually reads "AMERICAN PROHIBITION" flag.

The flag image in the original source clearly includes the WHITE RIBBON of the WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, an independent group not affiliated with the Prohibition Party.

The flag has been recreated in the WIKI, but without the WHITE RIBBON which is an intregal part of the flag, and designates this flag as belonging to the WCTU, not the Prohibition Party.

Original book source image available on request. MMWOOD1958 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead contradiction

[edit]

"The platform of the party today is more progressive on economic issues in that it supports Social Security, animal rights, LGBT+ rights, and free education, but is conservative on social issues, [...]"

LGBT and animal rights are social issues, not economic issues. I don't know a thing about the modern party, but what is written is suggesting it's not conservative on social issues. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prohibition_Party&oldid=1253874417"