Talk:Prohibition Party

message: 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)
thread_title: Founding date

message: 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 []. Amondson and Dodge both appeared on the ballot in Colorado, where only 518 votes were cast for both of them []. Overall, Amondson received 1,944 votes. These numbers should not be separated out from the other totals. Chronicler3 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 Election Information 

message: 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.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
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)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Prohibition states, 1896 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "unsourced" comments 

message: Why did Carrier and Holdridge withdraw? Шизомби (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn VP candidates? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prohibition revisionism 

message: 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)
replies: text: I took the first step of labeling the claims that require citation. Binarybits (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the neutrality issues have been dealt with. Any objections to removing the tag? Binarybits (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hearing no objections I've removed the tag. Binarybits (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul needed 

message: 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,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.
References
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Let's add a Criticism section!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Toby Davis' recent edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current chair 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prohibition Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130804065241/http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/169-Willard to http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/169-willard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130804065241/http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/169-Willard to http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/169-willard
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Message From Hedges

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616214637/http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:5584 to http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A5584
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  This article links to a Canadian Prohibition Party article that does not exist 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Pro-abortion" vs "pro-choice" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USHR elections before 1938 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ERROR regarding flag