Talk:Neo-prohibitionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(shodan at wikipedia@domn.net) as much as I think that the idea of neo-prohibitionnism is stupid and it is a cause taken by closed-minded individual who feel like they have to impose their wills on other because of a "we know what's best for you" attitude, this article is wrong because it has been written by someone who is not impartial the main signs of that is the "assertions" section which words those assertions in a way that no one would if they were advocating them phrases that I have a problem with are

"The amount of alcohol consumed (rather than the speed with which it is consumed, the purpose ..." just because they focus on the amount (and neglige the other factors) doesn't mean they actively think the other factors are meaningless no scientificly minded person would knowingly ignore such factors even if they seemed irrelevant (which they don't of course!)

"Neo-Prohibitionists tend to place primary responsibility on the cultural environment rather than the drinker for alcohol abuse."

this last phrase is "preaching to the converted" by pointing out the paternalism mentality of the neo-prohibitionists and a trait of placing the responsability on someone else and away from the real cause of the so called problem (that would be the drinker if there were to be a problem)

this article is not impartial because of the loaded way that it is written even if it is accurate (which it might not be) some key phrases should be re-worded and at least the pro and cons should be listed so we have both sides instead of just the con side masquerading as impartial (shodan at wikipedia@domn.net)(also there is a typo "Catagorizing" oh and also I believe those "sources" have just been slapped on for added credibility but I'm not sure the content of this article reflects on those sources)

-OOPSIE- 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I changed assume to assert, because assume made the article feel like someone who disagrees with the Neo-prohibitionism position was saying "These people are just assuming this, they have no evidence". Assert feels more neutral.

[edit] == Questions Regarding The Legitimacy of This Article==

Neo-Prohibitionism is more of a term used by critics of certain viewpoints than it is of any organized movement. I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of this article for inclusion in wikipedia. Neo-Prohibitionists are people who disagree with advocates within the alcohol beverage industry and would restrict their freedoms and are therefor labeled with the derogatory label "neo-prohibitionists." If you oppose affirmative action, and I call you a "neo-segregationist", does that mean that the term "neo-segregationism" deserves a article on wikipedia. I then go on to decide what neo-segregationists generally favor, and I set forth this claim in a bunch of uncheckable references off wikipedia. I just made up the term neo-segregationism. By using the suffix "ism" and "ist", the article false implies that there is a substantial organized movement that identifies with this view. In many years of study and education in the social sciences, I have never met one person who has claimed to be a neo-prohibitionist.

This article also lacks bona fide substantiation of the claims in the article. It needs to substantiate that there are people who identify themselves as neo-prohibitionists and that they take the positions asserted. If it can do this, it needs to quantify the size of this movement. --Bill Smoot 03:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If the term is used primarily by critics, this doesn't neccessarily mean it's not suitable for an article. Few organization self-apply the label "terrorist" either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on terrorism. Friday (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Uncheckable references"? Those references look checkable; it's just that they are not on-line checkable. We are spoiled and duped by the availability of on-line resources; 99% (or thereabouts) of all human knowledge is still off-line, afterall. Courtland 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands certainly seems very odd. On the one hand, you have the fact that "neo-prohibitionism" is a perjorative term used by, primarily, people trying to sell alcohol (witness the nice little ad for the American Beverage Licensees and their good works). But then it goes on to list what "neo-prohibitionists" believe. So it definitely comes across as a "hey, these loonies are trying to take away your god-given right to buy alcohol!" rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article on a political position which may or may not exist.

And speaking of political positions, I got here from the prohibition article, which said neo-prohibitionism was common in Scandinavia. But there doesn't seem to be any mention of that in this article. FiggyBee 13:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No copyright violation

I created this page from my website, to which I hold copyright.David Justin 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, I nuked most of the article

It seems, on reflection (and research), that "neo-prohibitionist" is a spin term, and inherently POV. Since there is no-one who will actually claim to be neo-prohibitionist, ascribing a list of beliefs and aims to a group of non-existant people (as this article previously did) seems absurd, and poisoning the well to boot. FiggyBee 14:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Ian Wilkinson's edit (which was really mostly a revert to older versions of the page), based on the concerns already raised by people here. The source of his information on what 'neo-prohibitionists' believe is this website, which is funded by an alcohol marketing organisation. It doesn't exactly read as a fair and even-handed statement that there are people who think alcohol causes problems in our society. FiggyBee 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)