Talk:Neo-prohibitionism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

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. --OOPSIE- 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Verifiability

(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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.10 (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright violation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi FiggyBee- I've tried to add important material to this entry. Perhaps the inclusion of complete references within the text created a mess so I've corrected that problem. I think the additional material has improved the usefulness of the entry for the reader who wishes to explore the topic in detail without distracting from its usefullness to the casual reader. Thanks.David Justin 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing per WP:RS and not .edu or .org

Whether you are pro, con, or just don't care, please source content per WP:RS. Since articles related to alcohol show a history of abuse (per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual), it would be helpful to limit WP:PRIMARY in favor of mainstream, objective reporting per WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 05:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about legitimacy and WP:NPOV

This article continues to show concerns about its legitimacy. It does not appear that "neo-prohibitionism" is a term used at all by anyone to describe their own beliefs, and is solely a term used as biased propaganda. It's not really used enough that I'm sure it qualifies for its own Wikipedia article at all. It's not particularly notable, and this page appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. Is there anyone who can justify this article's existence? If not, then I'll submit an AfD on it. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]