Talk:Moms Demand Action

Active discussions

Tactics and MethodologyEdit

I think that the tactics that MDA uses needs to be addressed.

The fact that they shun open debate, deliberately lie and twist facts, and resort to ad hominem attacks against those that disagree with them needs to be stated.

Also, the fact that they are wholly funded by and used as attack dogs by Bloomberg needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense User (talkcontribs) 04:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels commentEdit

The following paragraph does not conform to Wikipedia's standards and should be removed:

On September 23rd, 2014, Moms Demand Action New York chapter leader Alison A. Martin posted support for Joseph Goebbels to her twitter account, calling his statements, "wise words to live by." [1]

Please consider the following:

  1. The cited source does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards, as it appears to be a self-published blog (see WP:RS). It certainly does not meet wikipedia's standards for negative material about a living person (see WP:BLP)
  2. Agreeing with a quote from an unidentified person does not constitute support for that person. To suggest otherwise without a reliable secondary source is original research. See WP:NOR
  3. This paragraph does not demonstrate the notability of this particular quote. I see no mention in the mainstream press.
  4. It does not describe her position within the organization (other than as a "leader"). She is described as a "New York chapter leader". There is a significant difference in notability between the President of the organization or a local leader.GabrielF (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Moms Demand Leader Honors The "Wise Words To Live By" Of Nazi Propaganda Minister". Bearing Arms. September 24, 2014. Retrieved 24 September 2014.

The source gives a screenshot of the now deleted twitter account with comment. The quote was identified by name when Ms Martin agreed with it, and praised it's wisdom. The mainstream press has not made mention of this relatively minor, yet notable in that it indicates the mindset of the organization's leadership. Her full title is apprpriate and has been added to the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:12, 25 September 2014‎

If the mainstream sources haven't noted it, it isn't notable, by definition - not that we have any reason to believe that a partisan website like was reporting it accurately in the first place. And we aren't the slightest bit interested in your personal opinion as to 'the mindset of the organization's leadership'. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and we have policies concerning inappropriate content involving living persons. Since you have ignored this policy (and WP:3RR) despite warnings, I have requested that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You cry about a "partisan website" (it is, of course, all over the net, not merely one site) in defense of one of the most aggressive, extreme and often violent partisan websites(it isn't a group because it has no membership) and then seek to silence others. Are you familiar with the term hypocrite? How about intellectual coward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Page ProtectionEdit

Because of ongoing vandalism, and because the page had temporary protection in the past, I have requested Indefinite Page Protection for this page. See WP:RFPP. Prof. Mc (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn thing needs it. Can't have people discussing what this paid Bloomberg shill and her memberless (when IS someone going to provide a link for the PAID member list/the claimed "150,000" mebers?) fringe group are really all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Watts modeled Moms Demand Action after Mothers Against Drunk Driving."Edit

Should the sentence be "Watts modeled Moms Demand Action after Mothers Against Drunk Driving." or "Watts claims that she modeled Moms Demand Action after Mothers Against Drunk Driving."? I feel it should be the latter; we do not have a neutral party confirming it. Poking @KH-1: because they reverted my edit. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Read WP:WEASEL, particularly - WP:CLAIM. -KH-1 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@KH-1: Thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind. Why not change it to "said" or "stated" rather than reverting? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge to Everytown for Gun SafetyEdit

The organizations merged over a year ago (and MDA has been a part of Everytown for the majority of its existence). The pages should merge too. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like just a puff piece. Many other pages were deleted because they were simply advertising, as this one is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

More WikiAdvertisingEdit

As Wikipedia increasingly becomes a vehicle for promotion and advertising, this article is one more piece of evidence that any pretenses of this site being an encyclopedia ring hollower every year.

AKA gun controlEdit

"demand establish common-sense gun reforms"), AKA gun control.) "Gun reform" is what both sides talk about. We oughta be careful about claiming that a groups stands for something when it ain't part of their mission. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We should go with either "gun rights" or "gun control" where applicable (unless quoting sources directly), not "Second Amendment rights" or "common-sense gun safety laws" or any other POV puffery. And that's a good point; "reform" is so vague as to be practically useless. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we've gone back and forth on this. One question is whether the term should be standardized across Wiki for similar groups. Ie. Are MDA and the NR/A simply arguing opposite sides of the same coin (gun control) or are the advocates for two different things and therefore their pages should say different things? Prof. Mc (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
e/c Why are those the two options? Felsic2 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition to gun violence is not "POV puffery". That's kinda offensive. Felsic2 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
But saying "common-sense gun law reforms" as a euphemism for gun control certainly is, just as saying "God-given Second Amendment rights" would be POV puffery for "gun rights". And I'd say it's offensive to imply that gun rights organisations aren't against gun violence. I don't know of any organization that advocates for gun violence. In fact, many gun rights organizations argue that expanding gun rights leads to less gun violence. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about other groups. It's about this group. Why are there only two allowable designations? Who made that decision? Felsic2 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
(I've got a question about gun violence on the NRA talk page, if you want to explain why you're offended by the implication they aren't opposed to it. )Felsic2 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm offended by the implication in the same way I'm offended by the implication that Moms Demand Action or Everytown are secretly plotting to pave the way for a totalitarian takeover of the United States by the lizard people from Zorbrax 7. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the people involved on both sides of the issue are decent and are trying to do the right thing. Both sides want less gun violence, but they disagree on whether more gun control will do that. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't much matter how many groups there are, or even what they are about-- NRA, IRS, NSA, CIA. What matters is standardization across similar topics so that readers have some continuity. Are the NRA and MDA (and other groups concerned with guns) similar enough that the way they are categorized on the pages should be standardized? Or are they dissimilar and so deserving of a different kind of categorization?Prof. Mc (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue is more one of pigeon-holing and labelling. If a group says their mission is to reduce gun violence then is it appropriate for us to say their real mission is to promote gun control? How about if we said that the NRA is not really in favor of "gun rights" but instead favors higher gun sales? We could find sources which say so, but it'd be a distortion. Same here. Felsic2 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
One solution might be to delineate between "Organization's Stated Mission" and, I dunno, something else. Prof. Mc (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MISSION, mission statements are generally useless, and often full of POV puffery. A quick shout-out in the infobox (when in quotes) is probably okay, but going beyond that and parroting mission statements from either side seems like it will do little to educate the reader with neutral information. It is also probably undue/not notable unless and until it is covered by reliable sources. Even when a mission statement has been covered, it should always be quoted, rather than repeated in the encyclopedia's voice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
And that makes sense, yes. I think the point I was trying to make is that by indicating what the group's mission statement is, then it implicitly acknowledges the POV issue. Then the group can be categorized according to WP standards as well. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it be 'POV puffery' to call this group an "American social welfare organization"?[1] Felsic2 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears that that's specific IRS language, though I think I'd prefer " 501(c)(3)" in the encyclopaedia's voice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Good for the goose, good for the gander. [2] Felsic2 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In sorting out what to put, it's probably important to note that even the best descriptive term will hurt the authenticity of the article if the term is politically freighted. So, "gun control group" may not be the best term, even if it's spot-on. MDA is a "gun rights organization," just in a different way than the NRA. Prof. Mc (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, so? The group says they're against "gun violence". I see no reasons not to say so. We can also say that X, Y, or Z say they are primarily or secondarily for "gun control". Felsic2 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course they're against gun violence. I can't think of a single organization on either side of the gun control debate in the United States that isn't against gun violence. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's say the obvious. If that's what they support then we oughta say so. Felsic2 (talk)

Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United StatesEdit

(Split from above)

Is "life" not a civil right or civil liberty? That's why I added Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States. Felsic2 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No response? Felsic2 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You're assuming that gun control is a civil liberty (somehow), and you haven't provided any source that calls them a civil liberties advocacy group. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm assuming that "life" is a civil liberty. See Civil liberty. Do you dispute that? Felsic2 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
You have to show that reliable sources characterize it as such; your or any editor's opinion of whether it is a civil rights advocacy group is irrelevant. Anastrophe (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
)I see your point. Do we have reliable sources which charactize this group among "2012 establishments in the United States", "Firearms-related organizations", "Gun control advocacy groups in the United States", "Organizations established in 2012" , "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting", and "Women's political advocacy groups in the United States"? Either we need sources for every category in every article, or we can use editorial discretion. Either we can call people "gun rights advocates" on our own, or we can repeat what the sources call them. Let's be consistent. Felsic2 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
You're assuming that gun control is life, something we definitely can't do in the encyclopaedia's voice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm assuming that opposition to deadly gun violence is equivalent to advocating for life. Felsic2 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The other cats above are not controversial. The civil liberties cat has been challenged. Provide a source that describes the MDA as a civil liberties org, or start an RFC to get wider input, or drop the stick. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If Felsic2 is assuming, then it's not based on anything verifiable. That's transgressing into politics-as-editing. Prof. Mc (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
A particular mechanism of protecting life is not necessarily civil liberty though. For example, should we describe National Right to Life Committee as a civil liberties org? For this specific dispute, either sources describing MDA specifically, or even more generally, sources describing gun control in general as a civil right/liberty, or even debating if they are or aren't. Life is certainly a civil liberty. On the flip side of the coin, you can find hundreds of sources describing RKBA as a civil right/liberty (although there is certainly disagreement as to the scope of that right) and many sources further describing individual orgs as civil rights orgs. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave it for you guys to figure out. Just please be consistent in how advocacy groups are treated. Felsic2 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
There are two sides of advocacy in the gun control/gun rights debate. But only one side that can be described as in rights/liberty terms. A similar dissonance happens in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. The immediate goal/actions of the "anti" side in both debates is to restrict what is commonly refereed to as a right. That their purpose in doing so is (by their own measure) altruistic does not shift them to protecting a civil liberty though. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a mistake to say that there are only two sides and that we, as WP editors, should decide what groups beleive based on our division of politics into those two sides. Some groups or individuals that favor gun control also say they support the 2nd Amendment, for example, and some groups and individuals who favor gun rights say they are opposed to gun violence. It isn't a black/white issue and we would be inaccurate to depict it that way. Felsic2 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources tend to depict the issue as having two sides. And yes, many gun control groups say they support the Second Amendment, or responsible gun ownership. But reliable sources still depict them as being "on the other side" of the debate. The groups tend to be on one side or the other; they either support more restrictions or fewer. I'm not aware of any "middle ground" group besides Evolve, which stays in the middle by staying out of the legal questions entirely and focusing only on personal responsibility. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because people can be divided into two groups doesn't mean each 'side' moves in lock step. We can't decide that just because a group opposes gun control that they are automatically a civil liberties defender, and just because another group fights for the civil liberty of life doesn't mean that they are civil liberties opponents either. We either follow sources or we don't. Felsic2 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion is about anymore. Wiki itself defines civil liberties as personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge and notes that civil liberties are often enshrined in a bill of rights or a constitution. MDA advocates for reduced gun violence through gun control. That's not a civil liberties group, however much the side effect of their intention might speak to civil liberties. Can this discussion come to an end? Prof. Mc (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Wiki article on civil liberties says, "Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include ... the right to life". This group seeks to reduce gun violence, violence which leads to the loss of around 30000 lives a year in the US. Here's a compromise: only use the "rights" categories for groups which have explicitly been called "civil liberties/rights advocates". That'd exclude random "gun rights" groups like Second Amendment Foundation.[3] and National Association for Gun Rights Fair? Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You are engaging in WP:OR in your argument on the control side. On the other side of the coin, gun rights have been widely described as civil rights and at least in the US have been explicitly ruled so by SCOTUS. The gun rights groups are themselves regularly described as rights and liberties organizations. Beyond that though, your specific example is wrong anyway. SAF is described (self and 3rd party) as a civil rights org, and has filed (and won) numerous civil rights lawsuits. Either drop the stick or start an RFC, but you are just wasting everyones time right now (including your own) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I addressed this point when I wrote "That's not a civil liberties group, however much the side effect of their intention might speak to civil liberties." Let it go. Prof. Mc (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Going back, the consensus at NRA was to not include the category, bt then someone came along and added it without discussion. I've removed it pending a fresh consensus. Keeping it off all the gun politics articles will keep a level playing field. Felsic2 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Giajin42's link is supposed to show. [4] [5] Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Return to "Moms Demand Action" page.